A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable? [updated]

Update: Text in the middle of this diary has been edited for clarity

Barack Obama, "the presumptive nominee" of the Democratic Party, must feel lousy today after losing Pennsylvania by more than 200,000 votes yesterday, despite waging an aggressive and negative  campaign against Hillary Clinton, in which he outspent her 3 to 1.   It's not hard to imagine how much greater Clinton's win would have been had advertising budgets been equalized.

Democratic strategists and experts, such as George Stephanopoulos, have said that a win of 5 points or less by Clinton in Pennsylvania would have effectively secured the nomination for Obama.  But he was unable to crack Clinton's winning coalition of union households, women, white people,  seniors, blue-collar workers, Catholics, and Jews.  As proven in other states, Hispanics bolster her nationwide coalition even more.

The results across Pennsylvania were impressive for Senator Clinton:

According to exit polls, Hillary won voters most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42) and union households by 18 points (59-41). She won those with incomes between 100K and 150K by 20 points (60-40); white women by 32 points (66-34) and Catholics by 38 points (69-31). She won those who decided on the last day (59-41), the last three days (58-42) and the last week (54-46). Hillary Clinton press release.

Additionally, Clinton once again demonstrated her appeal in rural and suburban America, winning nearly all counties across the state.  And her succcess in Pittsburgh serves as a reminder that she too can carry urban areas.

As expected, Obama held on firmly to his coalition of African Americans and the wealthy (over $150,000 annual income).

But the AP asks why Obama "can't close the deal."

The sobering reality is that Obama's coalition is too weak and shallow to win a major cross-section of core Democrats from shore to shore.  Losses in one or two major states would hardly be noteworthy, but accumulated losses over the past 3-and-a-half months starkly reveal a problem for this "frontrunner." California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, to name a few, offer classic Democratic demographics .  Surely the super delegates must wonder whether Obama, the most successful presidential fundraiser in history, can assemble a winning Democratic coalition in any of these electorally rich states.

Also, questions about Obama's character, experience, judgment, and ability to empathize with common folk have increasingly plagued him. Red flags are popping up on a daily basis:

The company he keeps, as described by conservative commentator Andrew McCarthy is an inconvenient truth.  Obama's ambition and charisma conceal his thin senatorial records, explains Todd Spivak.  His veracity about an assortment of matters, from meeting Nadhmi Auchi to what he actually knew about Rev. Wright's bitter rhetoric, is also problematic.  And Obama's arrogance, most vividly displayed recently when he "flipped off" Hillary Clinton doesn't help his image with average Americans either.  Along the same lines, today David Axelrod audaciously insulted white working class voters by declaring them irrelevant to a Democratic victory.  That dismissive attitude, along with patriotism gaffes, likely explains why 32% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania told a pollster that they would never vote for Barack Obama. In the words of another writer:

If he becomes the Democratic Party's nominee for President, Sen. Barack Obama will lose the general election for this reason: When the smiles and platitudes are set aside, Obama's campaign and the philosophy of his cadre amount to one big put-down of America. Source.

One no longer needs to imagine how the GOP and 527's will attack Obama where he's most vulnerable.  The North Carolina GOP has already unveiled a television ad featuring Rev. Wright's damning of America, as reported today by Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic.  Although the ad is short and crude, the devastating potential of similar assaults is indisputable.  You can view it here.

Obama's narrow delegate lead can be largely attributed  to an effective strategy in caucus states (for which his campaign deserves credit) in addition to a hypnotized mass media.  However, the media is slowing waking up, as ABC News demonstrated in last week's debate.  And legitimate questions have now been raised about whether caucuses accurately reflect the peoples' will (as illustrated most clearly in Texas, where Clinton won the popular vote by more than 100,000 but "lost" the caucuses) and whether caucus irregularities have created an unlevel playing field.

And speaking of the will of the people, Hillary Clinton now boasts a lead of 123,358 in the popular vote when results from Florida and Michigan primaries are included, according to Real Clear Politics.

Super delegates probably hoped to avoid the serious task at hand.  But because Obama can't close the deal on his own, their votes will now be determinative. And while General Election polls should be evaluated cautiously at this early date -- indicators of Obama's electability problems are evident.  For example, in Massachusetts, where Obama enjoys the support of Senators Kerry and Kennedy as well as Gov. Patrick, there is disturbing news for Sen. Obama, as reported by The Boston Herald:

While Hillary Clinton soundly beats McCain in Massachusetts in the new SurveyUSA poll, 56 percent to 41 percent, the Obama/McCain number is 48 percent to 46 percent, well within the margin of error.

A Democrat struggling here in 2008? An unpopular war, a collapsing housing market and $4 gas - if Britney Spears were running as a Democrat, she'd pull at least 50 percent of the Massachusetts vote.

John McCain poses another threat to Obama, which is the potential to attract Hispanics, a voting bloc that can make or break a general election candidate. Clinton, on the other hand, has already established her good will among Latinos.

Obama is inclined to continuously blame Hillary for his election problems. But each candidate must be accountable for his or her weaknesses.  And that is one reason I admire Hillary Clinton.  Not only has she adapted her campaign strategy and structure when necessary, Clinton doesn't take the onslaught of assaults personally.  In fact, I'd guess that her grit and determination in the face of adversity have won over more voters.  Obama, on the other hand, is an incessant whiner, which of course is an unappealing quality in a friend, colleague, or spouse.  But in a general election candidate for President, petulance is a sure recipe for disaster.

All in all, the super delegates have many factors to consider.  At this stage, they should have a fairly complete picture of each candidate's advantages and disadvantages for the General Election, including their judgment, credentials, and demographic coalitions. It would not be surprising, therefore, if super delegates begin to break towards Clinton as the primary season finally winds down.

Cross posted at texasdarlin.wordpress.com and hillarysbloggers.com

Tags: ayres, blue collar, clinton, close the deal, coalition, Democrats, double digit, Electability, Election 08, Illinois, Indiana, MyDD, North Carolina, obama, Pennsylvania, record, rev. wright, Senate, Super Delegates, texas darlin, victory, Weather Underground (all tags)

Comments

313 Comments

Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

a loss all along.

Electability arguments at this point are stupid.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

shhh this is one of those diaries that Obama supporters should either avoid.

or just smile and nod.
smile and nod

by TruthMatters 2008-04-23 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

I've sworn off any HRC comments! I'm just anti-McCain right now! I can't help but be anti-fiction though:(

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 02:33PM | 0 recs
They predicted

It's worthy of discussion, she hasn't closed up the nom yet, although she's got the momentum and now she's getting the bucks. all along it's really been about the issues, if her competence and her huge group of experts and professionals, her unique qualifications are more desirable in the electorate than his newness and that he wasn't in office when the war authorization was voted on.  He stuck to his one message too long, he didn't plan for it to take this long, and he can do something now, if he wants to. He'd started by driving up her negatives, but that seems to have a ceiling, it's worked but voters still trust her to reverse Bush's policies and end the war, and they trust that she listens to experts and doesn't use instincts. She believes in learning from experience and from history.  He'll need to put forth more serious issues, and start to name his advisors and where he plans to lead, no more of this bottom up stuff and it's up to us to tell him where we want to go. We all want out of Iraq, better fiscal policies, universal health care, better schools, the usual Democratic ideals.  She's got a  priority, which is our kids, what they need to have great lives. He could put forth one himself, the one that means the most to him, whatever it is, and then get detailed. Someone should tell him that just going negative on Hillary works if she's blamed for it, but not if it brings him fewer votes.  I mean he can still drive up her negatives by playing her victim, that seems to work, but it doesn't stop her support,  It seems that even with all her 'baggage' she's still perceived to be highly competent, highly energetic, highly upbeat and positive, filled with hope and inspired by those who need government.    

by anna shane 2008-04-23 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: They predicted

that's it exactly. he's got a good stump speech, but the girl can talk policy all day long about any topic you choose.

that's why he's ducking sunday's debate. it'll make him look bad.

by campskunk 2008-04-23 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: They predicted

but the girl can talk policy all day long about any topic you choose.

So could Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

(always astounds me that people so quick to cry "sexism" insist on referring to this sixty year old United States Senator as a "girl". )

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 05:17PM | 0 recs
Gore and Kerry will look like big winners

Compared to Obama's performance in November.

by lombard 2008-04-23 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Gore and Kerry will look like big winners

I suspect a lot people on these boards would rather see McCain in the White House than be wrong about Obama.

Not enough to make any difference in the election, but what sad, bitter people they are.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 08:07PM | 0 recs
You don't need to shed any tears for me

I'm quite happy to be part of the fighting Jacksonian centrist part of the party rather than the droning, moralizing, leftist wimp wing, thank you.

by lombard 2008-04-23 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't need to shed any tears for me

That's a riot. Hillary Clinton as a Jacksonian.

Also, I love it when people describe Hillary Lieberman Clinton as a "fighter".  

Yeah, she sure spent eight years in the Senate making GW Bush fear her mighty roar, unshakable moral courage and ferocious resolution, didn't she? All those filibusters she led, always getting out in front of an issue, no matter what the polls said.

Yeah, she was a real fighter, wasn't she? That must be why John McCain is working so hard to wear her down in the media.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't need to shed any tears for me

You know who brought back that term? Jim Webb.

Do you know what Jim Webb opposed, vigorously? the Iraq war.

by Democratic Unity 2008-04-24 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore and Kerry will look like big winners

No, competence matters, not just ideological divisions, particularly having seen Bush in the last 7 years. I am sure conservatives would agree that despite being on their side, Bush was one of the most incompetent presidents ever. Many of us on the dem side, made the argument that Bush was a lightweight and hadnt shown any competency in anything he did at the time of running for presidency. Now that we have our Bush in Obama (granted Obama is intelligent and is light years away from Bush in terms of oratory), we cant have it both ways. You are going to have to demonstrate how this man has shown any worthwhile competence so far as a govt servent or any major causes or progressive issues he was advocating consistently while he was in office for nearly 15 years or so. The only thing he has really done well is to promote himself and run for higher office at regular intervals.

Dont point to legislation he co-sponsored. In Illinois until Jim Jones got to be the majority leader he had a mediocre record for and after that perhaps an average record due primarily to the fact that Jones had convinced others who were working on various legislation to either give up or share credit with Obama (as a resume builder for Obama's possible senate run) in the last year or two before his US senate run.

His regular schtick is that he brings revolutionary changes to politics and he unites people. His record in Illinois senate or US senate states completley otherwise. He had done nothing to change the Illinois politics in any significant way. Indeed as I said above, his career there was mediocre as long as the repubs were a majority and even after the dem majority whatever he did was primarily due to his buddying up with Jones to get resume padding, not earned by long and hard work or spending political capital for any issue passionately. In fact he hasnt shown any passionate cause or issue that he consistently advocated or fought for with his own political capital and using bold ideas as he now proclaims. If he is so good at changing the way politics works and such a uniter he should have demonstrated that by getting republicans on his side and making sure that he had a slew of even semi progressive legislation or even non-progressive legislative success while the repubs had the majority in the illinois senate. Even under dem majority, all he managed to do was agree on a fully watered down health care bill which was negotiated with the industry lobbyists to please the republicans who werent ready to sign on otherwise. No cigar for his vaunted changing of politics or uniting everyone.

Absence any of this, shouldnt the man at least show some competency in policy discussions before expecting the voters to take a leap of faith? Particularly on this guy who has done nothing that is a worthy achievement and has advocated for nothing and hadnt at least be part of a presidential team either formally or informally? Indications are he avoided controversial issues where he could lose political capital and just wanted to keep his options open for future runs for office.

If McCain had shown competency on the job, I would most certainly consider that very seriously before dismissing him and voting for Obama. Yes, SC justice apptment and war are worries. But hey, I think McCain is actually much more moderate than he leads on (just like Obama is doing on his positioning along the political spectrum). I dont think he will appoint right wing nuts to SC or prolong the war for a long time, if he gets elected. Because sure enough he knows that is a surefire way to drive his approval ratings to the teens or twenties.

by pdxarch 2008-04-24 12:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore and Kerry will look like big winners

And Hillary Clinton's "competence" brought us a botched attempt at health care, Newt Gingrich, and the Iraq War. And of course, her stumblebum campaign in now way reflects on her competence.

If you're so bitter about Clinton being a loser that you're telling yourself  McCain is really a secret moderate, you're an idiot.

I apologize for being blunt, but there's no nice way to put it.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore and Kerry will look like big winners

Hurray!! straight from the bot manual -- when you are confronted with logic/reason/facts put down insults. Look "bluntbot", if you only have a choice between somebody who plays at a high level and still failed at a very tough competition, and somebody who never even played at that level, to hire in your team, most normal people on the planet will hire somebody who plays at a high level but still fails. Bot geniuses like you apparently hire a guy who has never even attempted or advocated for anything worthwhile and get him to run the country.

I will agree with you on running an incompetent campaign. But if that were the standard then Bush must be the greatest president this country has ever seen.

On Iraq, did you or your great hope for this country call out Kerry on his vote when he said he was right and he would have still voted for the war knowing what he knew in 2004. I can get a direct quote from Obama saying otherwise. So put up facts or piss off. That said, yes hillary didnt lead on Iraq. But your fellow ran for cover as soon as he entered the senate and didnt do a thing to support either the censure from Feingold or on the funding for troops. He could have put his money where his mouth is and led on the senate floor on these issues. Then you would have had something to contrast the two realistically. As it stands he made a politically inexpensive stand while he was state senator from very liberal state senate distric.

by pdxarch 2008-04-24 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Gore and Kerry will look like big winners

Wow. That whole first paragraph is completely incoherent. If it were shorter, we could use it as a sort of LOL symbol for spittle-flecked ranting.

On Iraq, did you or your great hope for this country call out Kerry on his vote

I know I did.

So put up facts or piss off

So much anger. So useless. She lost because of that vote. You can spin and whine and say "Johnny did it too!!"  all you want. She lost, and that's why. Grow the fuck up and get the fuck over it.

That said, yes hillary didnt lead on Iraq. But your fellow ran for cover as soon as he entered the senate

As a Freshman, he deferred to senior politicians like Hillary Clinton, who continued to do nothing. She couldn't or wouldn't fill the void. He did.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-25 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore and Kerry will look like big winners

Look,

the bot reading comprehension problems are not my problem. Its yours. Nothing new and neither unexpected.

WTF? did you even read my post or just spitting garbage out without even reading it? when I asked if your great hope called kerry out, I know the answer. If you dont you should get to know the answer or STFU. He explicitly supported Kerry and claimed he wouldnt know how he would have voted and that his position is not very different from Bush's. I didnt hear him say anything about Kerry's judgement. If you have pls point to the source of such statements. Otherwise piss off ass I said before. If you actually did question Kerry's vote, good for you. But I have no way of knowing what you actually did and when. But apparently you have no problem with Obama's support for Kerry and Kerry's support of Obama while you hold Hillary to that standard.

she lost? You mean obama has 2025 delegates and therefore the nominee today? wake up dude!! It must be in your dreams.

Do you have any understanding of what cognitive dissonance really is? or is that not in the bot manual and too much for bots to understand? On the one hand the man claims he is a great leader because he had the right judgement on Iraq and therefore only he can get us out of Iraq and on the other hand you are claiming he was following the other senior senators. Which is it, he was the follower or leader? If he was just a follower, then how in the world does he qualify to be the leader of this country and indeed a major leader in the world, while he has shown no leadership on any issue thus far, according to you due to respect for other senior senators?

If you have no worthwhile logic/reason to provide for your arguments, frothing at the mouth doesnt make up for that. you might want to give working your immature brain a shot and come up with arguments that dont contradict themselves for a change, instead of calling people names and cursing them

by pdxarch 2008-04-29 11:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Gore and Kerry will look like big winners

STFU. [...] Otherwise piss off ass I said before.

give working your immature brain a shot [...] instead of calling people names and cursing them

Yes, I'll take my lesson in mature argumentation and restrained language from you.

Why don't you call me a "bot" a few more times. That's very clever. And original.

And none of it changes the fact that Hillary Clinton has proved herself, in the Senate, to be a passive, cautious, finger-in-the-wind spectator while George Bush shredded the Constitution, and, from the AUMF to Kyl-Lieberman to "obliterate", the worst kind of war-pimping, pandering demagogue on foreign policy.

Now, to borrow an expression from your "mature brain" and remarkable rhetorical skilz: Shut the fuck up and piss off, Hillbot.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-30 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore and Kerry will look like big winners

this was your first reply to my comments:
You are an idiot. I apologize for being blunt, but there's no nice way to put it Now you play the victim of my unrestrained language? You reap what you sow, Moron!!

Hillbot? What a comeback. Is that the best you learned from your "special education" clases? I have seen 5 year olds do better than this tit for tat. Sheesh!!

And none of it changes the fact that Hillary Clinton has proved herself, in the Senate, to be a passive, cautious, finger-in-the-wind spectator while George Bush shredded the Constitution, and, from the AUMF to Kyl-Lieberman to "obliterate", the worst kind of war-pimping, pandering demagogue on foreign policy

WTF? can you read the whole thread and see what I responded to before you post some complete nonsense? My original comment was about competence. Since you couldnt bring any facts/reason/logic to refute my arguement, suddenly now you change the subject and "none of it changes blah blah blah?". There ought to be some mental evaluation and minimal comprehension test or an IQ test, before people are allowed to post here and waste everybody's time.

Arguing with a chimp or watching metal rust would be more worthy of my time than trying to expect logic/reason or worthy arguments from you. Pls dont waste my time and get lost!

by pdxarch 2008-05-01 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Gore and Kerry will look like big winners

Oh, I remember which idiot you are now.

You're the one who said John McCain was really a secret moderate who would end the war and name moderate judges to the Supreme Court.

As for "competence", I think Clinton's combination of stupidity (AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman) and pandering ("obliterate", "gas tax holiday"), and her record of failure on the single significant initiative of her career (health care '93) more than demonstrates than anyone hoping for "competence" from a President Hillary might as well pretend John McCain is a moderate.

Oh, that's right...

(PS When I called you a "Hillbot", I was making fun of you for using the worn out "Obamabot". Try to keep up next time).

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-02 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore and Kerry will look like big winners

Disagree.  As does, I might add, Hillary Clinton.  Either that or she was lying during the debate.  

by bosdcla14 2008-04-23 08:50PM | 0 recs
In context

it is meant as an affectionate term of endearment:  i.e. "you're my girl!" means "you are my best friend!".  Used in another context:  "she's a dumb girl" is completely sexist.  It is whether the word is used in a positive context or not that determines its meaning.

by aurelius 2008-04-23 10:37PM | 0 recs
Re: They predicted

by SovSov 2008-04-23 07:03PM | 0 recs
Stuck to one message too long

I appreciate your mentioning Obama having "stuck to his one message too long."  From the beginning I didn't feel the "against the war from the beginning" distinction had any legs outside of the left wing of the party.  After awhile, every time he mentioned it I cringed for him a little.   It started to sound like his one big qualifier to an audience that had once supported the war themselves.  Worked for his base, went nowhere with anyone else.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-04-23 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: They predicted

It's true, Anna.  Her negatives have been consistent but people keep voting for her.  It seems that voters have higher priorities than likeability, such as competence and grit.

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-24 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: They predicted

plus, the more they get to know her the more they like her. most formed their negative opinions by listening to her detractors and were surprised she's so nice.  Aren't we lucky to support a candidate who won't let us down?  She's always even better than i hope she'll be.  

by anna shane 2008-04-24 03:05PM | 0 recs
Smiling and nodding

perfect description of the Obama supporter ;)

by linc 2008-04-23 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Smiling and nodding

yep.  Symptoms of Kool-aid syndrome.

by Tolstoy 2008-04-23 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Smiling and nodding

Yup. Looking at polls and numbers and facts.

We sure are a kookie bunch of cultists.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

As an Obama supporter i got one thing to say.

WIN THE DAMN PRIMARIES!!!

Enough pontificating about electability and what not, we all pundited ourselves to death just WIN. If Hillary is better she should WIN, stop whining about this and that sexism the media black voters mysoginists. Sure Hillary is great so GET THE DAMN VOTES AND ITS OVER. How simple is that! Why is it not over yet, cause she DID NOT GET VOTES. Something about Her turned off A LOT of voters, and something about Obama turned off A LOT OF VOTERS. So in the end the PEOPLE decide.

THE END

by edtastic 2008-04-23 07:07PM | 0 recs
A look at the results indicate

that Senator Obama is only good at winning caucuses or primaries in which he promotes being a "Democrat for a Day."  It is interesting that I have been solicited to travel for Obama to work encouraging Repubs to become Dems for a Day.  It sounds to me like he is only interested in winning the Democratic prinary campaign because a Dem for a Day certainly doesn't intend to be a Democrat in November.

For the record, I have never been solicited by Senator Clinton to do anything that is less than honorable.  The contrast is shocking.  That is why I believe that Hillary will win this campaign because she has the good Karma.  Obama's is looking not so good.

by macmcd 2008-04-23 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: A look at the results indicate

First of all, I don't believe you. Second of all, at least he's knowingly trying to bring Republicans to his side. All Hillary has to do is start losing, and Republicans flock to her to help destroy the front runner. I'd rather have the Republicans voting for Obama than the Republicans voting for Clinton.

by Okamifujutsu 2008-04-24 12:55AM | 0 recs
Re: A look at the results indicate

Democrat for a Day = You can lead a horse to water...It may not drink, but it will make him thirsty.....

by hootie4170 2008-04-24 12:17PM | 0 recs
Thats all thats left

and it certainly isn't stupid.  What is stupid, is you claiming that Obama said they were going to lose PA all along- its not often that one gets to post a comment the day after they were born!  Wow!

by linc 2008-04-23 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Thats all thats left

Actually, Obama's spread sheet predicted long ago that he'd lose PA. Hillary winning PA is like Obama winning NC. It's a non-event.  

by fugazi 2008-04-23 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Thats all thats left

it predicted a five-point loss, 52-47.

something has gone bad wrong with the predictions... we're in uncharted waters...

by campskunk 2008-04-23 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Thats all thats left

The campaign stupidly didn't think that Obama's baggage would come to the forefront before the primary was over. I would imagine Wright Ayers et al. turned 5 pts into 10.

by Ga6thDem 2008-04-23 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Thats all thats left

you mean 9%
I would normally leave a comment like this alone but your vitriol throughout this campaign for not only Sen. Obama but for his supporters makes me have to respond.

Oh and good job pardoning those weathermen at the end of the first clinton administration.  I am sure in no way would that come back to haunt a candidate that has already pissed off the minority and "elitist" wings of the party and has no base to count on.

by kasjogren 2008-04-23 07:07PM | 0 recs
by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-23 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Since we're being specific

My bad

by kasjogren 2008-04-24 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Thats all thats left

Yeah, he "stupidly" thought that his fellow Democrat would not use Republican talking points to attack him in the primary.  Well, now we know that their is no floor for what tactics Hillary will use.

by nklein 2008-04-23 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Thats all thats left

I'm astounded that there are some people who still haven't gotten over the Wright thing. This was dealt with a long time ago. Not that it was every a "scandal" that had anything to it. Seriously, this is the worst thing Clinton has dug up on him, and he used it to make one of his most inspirational speeches ever. Those of you whining about how the Republicans will tear him apart having been paying attention to the quality of the stuff anyone's been able to find. They're literally down to looking up his old neighbors to try to find a scandal. If that's not a thorough vetting, I don't know what is.

by Okamifujutsu 2008-04-24 01:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Thats all thats left

The Wright thing was "dealt with?"  So you think that everyone is now satisfied at Obama's explanation as to why he stuck with Rev. Wright for 20 years, took his kids to hear his sermons, considered him his mentor?

Oh that's right...there is no explanation.

Obama will learn if he has not already that fancy words and speeches can't instantly dismiss the lifelong decisions and judgments he's made which are questionable.

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-24 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Thats all thats left

Yes, 20 years, during which time he's said how many controversial things? I've never seen people get outraged at more than maybe 5 or 10. That sounds pretty reasonable to me. And how about every paster who knows Wright saying he's a good guy? You cannot take a 30 sound clip and say that it represents 20 years of a persons life.

The only way to that this was ever a problem was to say that a pastor who occasionally says controversial things is evil and trying to corrupt people. And if you think Wright was evil for pointing out social injustices in a heated way, then I guess that's as far as this discussion can go.

by Okamifujutsu 2008-04-24 11:07AM | 0 recs
yeah right

that is why he spent so much money and time here.

by TeresaInPa 2008-04-24 02:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Thats all thats left

Sigh. There are no electability issues.

Obama's camp predicted a loss quite some time ago. Demographics.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

Is that why he dumped the obscene amount of money into PA ads?

We are going to lose it anyway, let's waste some money.

by JoeySky18 2008-04-23 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

He dumped the money into PA to make HRC dump money into a state she had a 20 point lead in.  It's the same thing the DCCC is doing in republican held districts all over the country.  Stop being naive.

by Rockville Liberal 2008-04-23 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

Soooooo..... He spent $11 million so she would have to spend $3?

by georgiast 2008-04-23 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

Look at it this way--he had $41 million cash on hand half a million in debt, she had $8 million, and $10 million in debt, so who's really out the most in that deal?

Also spending that money helped him to allow people, even those who didn't vote for him this time around, to get to 'know him' so they will remember him in Nov. against McCain. Not a bad investment at all :0 have a great evening!

by Wary 2008-04-23 03:26PM | 0 recs
He can afford it.

She can't.

There's also the little matter of proportional-by-county delegate assignment, which makes heavy advertising worthwhile in Penn. even if one expects to lose...it can net you significantly more delegates in the end.

Speaking of delegates, how many did she gain?  I'm curious...I heard it was only 10-12.

by Elsinora 2008-04-23 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: He can afford it.

The figures I read somewhere said Hillary +8 - +12, with +10 looking the likliest outcome.

by Huck 2008-04-23 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

Unlike Clinton supporters, Obama and his supporters don't ignore percentages, Joey.

That's why we "dump money" on states whose primaries we don't expect to win anyway.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-23 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

Obama kept the difference to 10.  That's fantastic considering that Clinton was almost at 20 in early March.  I think his campaign would consider the money in PA well spent.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/12/1930 49/784
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/11/1433 6/5076

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-23 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

but he predicted five. not so good.

by campskunk 2008-04-23 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

For the record, if we're going to say Clinton "lost" a 20 point lead based on a select few errant polls, then anything short of a 30-35% point win by Obana in NC is a "loss."

by BPK80 2008-04-23 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted
  1. He bled Clinton dry.
  2. He made sure she didn't gain many delegates.
by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Why he might feel lousy

As the press is now pounding, his inability to make it a real contest in Pennsylvania, on the heels of Ohio, is raising questions of his broad appeal.  He had to spend alot of time, energy and money to close the gap as much as he did.  And while it could be spun as only a matter of "demographics" those same damn demographics are impossible to escape in a general election.

The size of the loss is raising the question of "electability" to a new level.  Whether that's fair at this point is irrelevant.  The point is the question is now out there and gaining air time.  The remaining uncommitted supers could end this all tomorrow by declaring (enough to get her to concede) but apparently they aren't sure which way to go just yet and the electorate wants the race to continue.

It appears there are growing doubts about declaring a presumptive nominee.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-04-23 06:41PM | 0 recs
Growing doubts or panic?

this guy cannot be given the nomination in this condition -all these swing state losses, all the baggage of Wright, cling-gate, now these ads in North Carolina - BO is not ready for prime time.  We have too much at stake to nominate BO - we need a winner - her name is Hillary Clinton.

by Molee 2008-04-23 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Growing doubts or panic?
talking about baggage concerning electability?
 does a clinton supporter really want to get into an argument about bad baggage?
by theninjagoddess 2008-04-23 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Growing doubts or panic?
talking about baggage concerning electability?
 does a clinton supporter really want to get into an argument about bad baggage?
by theninjagoddess 2008-04-23 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Growing doubts or panic?

Do you think that Hillary will win the GE if Obama supporters, including the tens of thousand young voters who are helping to reshape the map, and she receives very little support from African americans who feel that their candidate has been overruled in the same manner Gore was vs. Bush?

The backlash against Hillary gaining the nomination will be huge if she can't overtake him in the popular vote. (and I know she claims it right now, but even the most die hard supporter has to admit the numbers she is using are bogus. It's ironic that she doesn't count his votes in MI)

by Djo 2008-04-23 07:34PM | 0 recs
It's HILLARY who is unelectable

One ad in the general, and Hillary would be done:

Video clip of American soldiers in Vietnam, running for their lives as they're ambushed, terrified that they're about to die. Fade to video clip of Hillary describing her sniper fire "experience", literally smiling and laughing as she talks about it. Then cut to her joke about it on the Leno show.

Hillary's campaign for the White House? FINISHED

by ratmach 2008-04-23 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

Because unlike Hillary's, Obama's campaign isn't made up of morons who don't understand a proportional system and the value of limiting Margin of Victory. Also because he had far, far more money to spend, I'd bet if you go as a % of cash on hand Obama was outspent by Hillary.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-23 03:02PM | 0 recs
Uh uh

See this is the kind of comment that 1st lumps a group together and 2nd says something rude.

It doesn't help- stop it, now.

disclosure- I am an Obama fan who leans "anyone but McSame"

by califdem 2008-04-23 06:25PM | 0 recs
Same here

I am an Obama supporter and I am sick of the mud slinging between fellow Democrats.  We are doing the Republican's work for them whenever we do that.  It is fine to boost your chosen candidate, make arguments about electability, etc, but we must draw the line at personal insults.  Remember, we NEED each other in the fall, whoever wins the nomination.  If we are divided, its four more years of neocon corruption and mismanagement.

I was a Dean supporter in 2004, but I still pounded the pavement and did GOTV for Kerry.  I personally think Dean could have beat Bush, but I did my damdest to put Kerry over the top anyway.  Predictions of unelectibility are only true if we let it happen.

Good grief, we have two strong candidates and the wind at our backs.  McCain is toast no matter who our candidate is... as long as we stay united!

Peace.

by protothad 2008-04-24 10:26AM | 0 recs
Both Clinton and Obama have

coalitions that are too weak and shallow to win on their own.

That's why whichever one wins needs a unified party.  I'll be there.  I hope you will also, whether it is Clinton or Obama who is nominated.

by TomP 2008-04-23 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Both Clinton and Obama have

I'm a Democrat. I'll vote for whatever Democrat wins the nomination. That's why I believe that whoever is trailing after the last primary should drop out.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why would he feel lousy? They predicted

It's stupid to consider electability factors?  How so?

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-24 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Obama is such an arrogant jerk for giving Hillary the super-bird.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-23 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Repeating a sentiment that's in the diary warrants a troll rating.  Nice.

Let's get this straight 4justice: The diarist says Obama is arrogant for flipping Hillary the bird and you rec the diary.  I say that Obama is an arrogant jerk for flipping Hillary the super-bird (middle finger AND pointer finger) and I get a troll rating.  Not sure I follow your logic.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-23 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

What the fuck is a super-bird?

by LandStander 2008-04-23 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Dumb TR.  Uprated.

by fogiv 2008-04-23 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Because it NEVER happened and you repeating does not reflect well on your own knowledge vs. blind beliefs.

Always be critical of the media, and if you do choose to parrot something you read on Redstate, for chrissake research it first.

by califdem 2008-04-23 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

I wasn't aware that Redstate was talking about the superbird.  I was also not aware that people would actually think I was serious while talking about a superbird that involved both the middle finger and the pointer finger.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-23 06:41PM | 0 recs
Hmmm

Maybe a psuedo-connection to Dane Cook (superfinger) got you the troll rate.  In that case, maybe it's fair.  :-)

(Obviously kidding, but I think it's interesting how so many people turned on Dane Cook so quickly)

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-23 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

You're just being melodramatic. No candidate wins every state and Obama's own spreadsheet predictions showed Clinton winning there. He doesn't feel lousy at all - he's winning. Now on the the next race.

by Becky G 2008-04-23 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

and, in answer to the diarist's title question, yes, Obama is electable....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-24 05:17PM | 0 recs
Hyperbolic/False.

Citing Stephanopolous as any kind of expert after his atrocious tabloid behavior at the debate is also exceeingly rich.

Insane that anyone is really pursuing the "birdflipping" after it has been so soundly debunked.

This is not a good diary I'm afraid (although I commend the effort).

I'm sure you'll write it off as biased.  But at least the numbers aren't chosen selectively; I link you to this fantastic statement of fact:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4 /23/2417/55984/47/501352

by Mardarkin 2008-04-23 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Saying that Obama can't crack Hillary's coalition and thus can't win the GE ignores 2 key facts:

1) Hillary can't crack his coalition, which -- given that he is winning in popular vote-- must be larger than hers.

2) The fact that Hillary's coalition likes her better than Obama in the primary says nothing about who they will like better between Obama and McCain in the GE.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-23 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

in 2 months, we will see who will be left standing.

by JoeySky18 2008-04-23 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Hopefully both with Hillary campaigning with Obama as his VP.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-23 02:42PM | 0 recs
HRC has had to clean up after men...

everywhere she's gone.  Why would she want to do it for Obama?

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-23 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC has had to clean up after men...

I will ignore that part about cleaning up.

She would want to do it because it will give her her best chance to run for President 8 years from now.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-23 02:59PM | 0 recs
That's funny. In 8 years

she will be an OLD woman (by Obama supporter standards).  I can just imagine the wonderful things you will all say then.

Besides - after 4 years of Obama, no Dem will be elected to the office of POTUS for another generation.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-23 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: That's funny. In 8 years

Please don't stereotype Obama supporters.  I would never intentionally say anything personally disparaging against Hillary.  I think--by and large -- that she is a good democrat and would make a good president regardless of her age.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-23 04:01PM | 0 recs
Then you are the exception to BO Rulz.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-23 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Then you are the exception to BO Rulz.

I don't know who you have spoken with in the past but I can assure you that the Obama supporters I know are just good people trying to support the candidate that they favor.  There are bad apples in every camp but the majority of us are respectful people, your personal experiences notwithstanding.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-23 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Then you are the exception to BO Rulz.

Wish I could double rec this...

LOOK Y'ALL- an Obama supporter here

AND I am a nice person, who likes my Hillary-supporter friends. We have intense discussions, this is a huge moment in time- where we, hopefully, bring the US out of this awful mess the repug's have led us in to and whomever we ALL give the nod too, it needs to be as a group.

If you keep up the negative slanders you only reflect poorly on yourself, not Hillary and not the Obama supporters you slander.

by califdem 2008-04-23 06:33PM | 0 recs
Slander is spoken.

Libel is written - FYI.

And you're accusing me of slander?

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-23 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC has had to clean up after men...

Oh, so Hillary is a MAID now?  I'm tired of this sexism!

;)

by fogiv 2008-04-23 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC has had to clean up after men...

That's what you think the VP slot is?

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

well no the AA and the youth vote will just automatically go to HRC.

right

right?

by TruthMatters 2008-04-23 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

It also ignores that, should Obama be the nominee, Hillary will be campaigning for him.

Possibly even as his VP.

Swap the names Obama/Hillary for the reverse situation.

Where the majority of the electability argument should be focused is on the independents, and they didn't vote in PA. It was a closed primary.

by Huck 2008-04-23 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

The "longitudinal factor" is rarely taken into account during these discussions.  If Wright, Ayers, Rezko, and so on had hit the MSM earlier, the outcomes would be different.  Even still, his past is emerging.  His fast rise to power out of Chicago involves getting down with all sorts of sleazy characters who are still being pulled out of the woodwork.  Ali Ata is the latest.

by The Smoldering Crone 2008-04-23 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Those revelations have had negligible effect on Obama now and they would have had the same effect if they had been revealed earlier.  People are tired of character assassinations and guilt by association and they vote accordingly.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-23 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

There is no evidence they had any substantial effect on his performance.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and um, yeah did you also hear that he was endorsed by Tricky Dick Nixon's daughter?   That will really stick some "longitudinal factor" on him.

Oh yes, you know that already, because you were one of those readers that recommended the diary earlier today that brought the Nixonian cluster bombshell to light.

Maybe some of his Chicago Gangland henchman will get caught stashing a reel to reel tape recorder in Clinton's campaign office.  I hear G. Gordon Liddy has been giving Axelrod and Plouffe "plumbing" lessons.

I bet Obama's already secretly bombing Cambodia.

Pretty soon, Barry Obama will be giving a speech flashing victory signs (with one finger on each hand) saying "I am not a crook".

He's doomed already!  Draft the articles of impeachment in case this Chicago-style slimeball gets into the White House.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-04-23 05:26PM | 0 recs
She has done more for his coalition

than he has - AAs and the creative class will come back to her.  But poor whites and hispanics will never go to him.  Tough feedback but true.

As for who will beat McCain - every day we are reminded it is Hillary - don't believe me? ask the Votemaster.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/Apr23.html

by Molee 2008-04-23 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: She has done more for his coalition

Thorny fact for you:  Twice as many Democrats think Obama is more electable as president than Clinton.

by haystax calhoun 2008-04-23 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: She has done more for his coalition

What has she done for African Americans, seriously, I mean besides providing them with the opportunity to travel throughout Mesopotamia?

As for the creative class, I'm sorry Senator Censorship isn't going to win that debate.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-23 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: She has done more for his coalition

Even with the polls you cite (which I don't believe are accurate this far out) Hillary still has 127 electoral votes that are rated barely Democratic or tied. Obama (who still beats McCain -- albeit by 20 electoral votes less than Hillary) has mostly solid blue states with only 63 ranked as barely Dem or tied.  That seems more like an argument for Obama than for Hillary.  She has a lot more territory where things can go wrong to tilt a barely Dem state to McCain, whereas Obama has most of the country locked up Blue.  I'll take my chances with a guy who can convince more than 51% of state voters to go for him.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-23 09:08PM | 0 recs
Hillary has the popular vote

Hillary has had the popular vote of Democrats for a long time. Now she has the total popular vote (including Obama's "Democrats for a Day" etc) from all 50 states.

by 1950democrat 2008-04-23 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary has the popular vote

Luckily a metric that counts votes in unofficial elections where candidates were not allowed to campaign and an election where only one major candidate was on the ballot is not taken seriously by anyone outside of the hardest or hardcore Hillary supporters--including SD's.  Counting popular votes from the unofficial contests in MI and FL is no more legitimate than creditting Obama with the votes of a non-binding straw poll held in a high school gymnasium.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-23 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Good diary. He is not electable. Anyone who wants the White House and a dem sweep in November backs Hillary. She is the only candidate who can pull it off. He lost ground in every demographic last night except AA's. Wright and Ayers and Rezko have damaged him beyond repair.

by linfar 2008-04-23 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

I won't troll-rate this, but it's certainly deserving of it.

He's not electable, yet nationally polls slightly HIGHER than Hillary?

Enough of the melodramatics, please.

by Huck 2008-04-23 02:40PM | 0 recs
How/why is it troll-worthy?

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-23 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: How/why is it troll-worthy?

I felt the post self-explanatory.

by Huck 2008-04-23 03:10PM | 0 recs
That makes one of us

It was polite and reasonable.  And you disagreed with something she said.

by Trickster 2008-04-23 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: That makes one of us

I disagree. The premise is not reasonable given the facts.

I made my view plain but didn't actually troll-rate her post. What's your point?

by Huck 2008-04-23 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

He only polls slightly better among self-identified Democrats, nationally.  In the fall, the field will be a lot less favorable to Obama.  

by BPK80 2008-04-23 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

No - he appeals more to indies and republicans - he will be stronger in the GE.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-23 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

go back to your bridge.

by Rockville Liberal 2008-04-23 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Dooom!   Doom, I say!

by HSTruman 2008-04-23 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

That's right, linfar, the last thing us Obama supporters want is to win the White House in November. We're backing Obama because we want the Republicans to win. It's our secret plan. Don't tell anyone, OK?

by jdusek 2008-04-23 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Really?

When I saw the exit poll comparisons to Ohio, it looked like he gained ground in some key areas.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-04-23 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Oh noes!  He lost the Catholics worse than the Holy Roman Empire in 1520!  (Come on...give it up for the history joke?)

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-23 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

"He lost ground in every demographic last night except AA's"

Interesting theory!  Let's see.

In OH, which has an Af-Am population of 18%, Obama lost by 10.4%

PA has a much smaller Af-Am popluation - only 13% - so if your theory is right, Obama must have lost by much more than he did in OH.  Figure he lost by 15% or more.

Huh.  Turns out he didn't.  He did better than Ohio.

Unless he won 200% of the African-American vote in PA, I'm pretty sure he must have won more votes from other groups... which is also what every analysis of the exit polls tells us.

by TL 2008-04-24 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

If any democrat is not electable in such a slam dunk election, look at the  party for bigger problems. The fact that this is not a slam dunk election despite 8 years of Republican blunders and running against a guy on board for the biggest blunder of them all - Iraq war , just says that you need to be taking your entire party to task.

by Pravin 2008-04-23 02:44PM | 0 recs
that would be Dean's lack of

leadership... we are all learning.  You are right - where's the discipline?  I think a strong party leader would have told Barack  NOT to enter the race this year.  The guy needs some serious resume building not ego building.

I supported Dean from the start but am sorely disappointed with him.

by Molee 2008-04-23 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: that would be Dean's lack of

What? What were the senators including Hillary and Obama doing the last 8 years? Don't pawn this off on Dean. Dean ran a 50 state campaign. What were Pelosi and Reid doing playing defensive politics? What about all the DEmocrats who still are overcautious with respect to terrorism and concede the framing of the war issue to so called hawks and moderates.

by Pravin 2008-04-23 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: that would be Dean's lack of

Yeah, he totally should have waited.  I mean, he's barely in first place by 140 delegates.  Man, it's too bad he didn't wait.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-23 07:29PM | 0 recs
Most recent PA General Election Poll

Rasmussen has both Clinton and Obama beating McCain in PA, but I'll let ya'll get back to the doomsday scenarios if Obama wins the nomination.  Here's the numbers:

Obama     McCain
47%       39%

Clinton   McCain
47%       38%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/pennsylvania/election_ 2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election

by HSTruman 2008-04-23 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Most recent PA General Election Poll

Don't go confusing us with facts!

by interestedbystander 2008-04-23 10:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

We'll do just fine. In the end, Hillary's supporters will come on board in November.

by fugazi 2008-04-23 02:48PM | 0 recs
a straight edge - NOT

by Molee 2008-04-23 06:55PM | 0 recs
Some of them will.

A lot more won't.

by georgiapeach 2008-04-24 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Pennsylvania proves why Obama doesn't want a revote in Florida and Michigan.  Like I've commented elsewhere no Super Delegate has said the popular vote in Florida and Michigan won't count that is an assumption by Obama supporters it's only the delegates that won't count.  If Hillary wins Indiana make no mistake those Super Delegates will be including the popular votes from Florida and Michigan in their calculations despite what any pundit on the media says.  If I were a Super Delegate I'd be thinking Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan could go to McCaine in the General if Obama is the nominee.  Bottom line Obama had seven weeks, unlimited funds, a solid community of voters and frontrunner status yet failed big time in PA.  

by orionwest 2008-04-23 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Why not? He can't do worse than zero delegates out of MI and actual campaigning shows him make gains every time.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

May I remind you that Obama had his ad running in Florida 'accidentally' when no other candidates had their ads run 'accidentally' in Florida.  So you could say he not only had a win in South Carolina and all the media attention but was the only candidate with ads on TV and like PA still lost bigtime!

by orionwest 2008-04-23 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

You may and I'll remind you that Obama had national ads that most certainly hit other states as well but once he starts physically campaigning there his numbers rocket up.

He expected to win PA. See how HRC was bled dry and didn't make a dent in the delegate count? You think that was an accident?

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

The point here though is Obama failed and Hillary has closed the popular vote gap.  The pledged delegates by the way don't represent the will of the people unless a candidate happens to have 2024 of them.  (In fact districts get more delegates based on their loyalty to the party not the population of the district.)  So it seems both candidates will have to go begging to the Super Delegates for their support.  The Super Delegates can flip coins to decide if they want they have no standard to follow.

By the way Obama's numbers didn't exactly rocket up after seven weeks of non-stop campaigning in PA!   I suppose though, as you infer, it was his plan all along to spend tens of millions and lose by double digits just to bleed Hillary dry finacially.  She has raised over ten million in the last 24 hours so I guess that part of his plan has failed as well.  His only accomplishement seems to be sowing doubt in the minds of the Super Delegates as to the strength of his candidacy.  Great Plan!

by orionwest 2008-04-23 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

The pop vote is meaningless.

After Ohio, before he started campaigning in PA, he was down about 16-20. He finished @ 9 (that is a single digit). She made up no ground and has been bled dry.

10 million? She can cover her bill to Penn and campaign in one state with that. That's all.

The supers will go with the pledged delegate leader. They won't risk losing generations of elections just for one election. Clearly you would but they're professionals who aren't going to be so shortsighted.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

The popular vote is very important and will figure heavily.  The Super Delegates will go with whoever they feel is the stronger candidate regardless of the pledged delegates.  In this case if they feel Hillary is the stronger candidate she will get the nod and Obama would be VP it could also be the other way around.

By the way I paid 9.9940 for a brush and I was so happy it didn't cost ten dollars!  What really floored me though was that amount was the same number that Hillary won PA by in last night's election.  Imagine that!  

by orionwest 2008-04-23 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Please. They're not going to give up generations of elections for one. You think they're stupid? They're professional politicos.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

The Dems want the White House this year.  'Generations of elections' will take care of themselves later!  That's the way professional politicos think!  In the end I couldn't care less who wins the nomination Obama or Hillary makes no difference.  I know better than to believe anyone from Congress!

by orionwest 2008-04-23 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Taking the African-American vote for granted is a mistake but it won't be one the supers will make.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Right, because they're so enamored with John McCain.  

by BPK80 2008-04-23 09:31PM | 0 recs
Losing us white hicks will hurt , too

We far outnumber you and we will vote Republican if we're pushed far enough.  We have done it before.  And, if we leave, we may not come back for awhile.

A party of African Americans, college kids, and young white urban singles won't win many presidential elections.

by lombard 2008-04-23 10:37PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Do you think the superdelegates will consider that the popular vote doesn't include all the caucus states where Obama trounced Hillary?  The "popular vote" argument seems like a sneaky way to discount many of the states Obama won in.

by catalysis 2008-04-23 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

The popular vote is useless as a barometer according to objective observers....Now Hannity, Robertson, the GOP, Clinton supporters and Clinton staffers think otherwise.....

by hootie4170 2008-04-23 06:29PM | 0 recs
Incorrect

She won by 9.20%  That's with 99.51% reporting so it may change slightly, but certainly not to 9.994.  Anyway, if you want to say "about 10%" or something like that, you'd be mostly accurate.

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/E lectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&a mp;ElectionID=27&OfficeID=1

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-23 07:32PM | 0 recs
Funny


   you say candidates are accountable for their weaknesses, w/out bothering to assess Hillary's weaknesses.

  She too loses a large portion of the base (African Americans), she too lost several states that Democrats MUST carry if they are to have any chance of the WH...over 54% view her as dishonest.

  Might be nice if you assessed both candidate's weaknesses, instead of telling us we should and then only going after Obama.

by southernman 2008-04-23 03:09PM | 0 recs
TexasDarlin


   you act as if the GOP won't attack Hillary at all. You're basically saying we should nominate Hillary out of fear of the GOP.

  that's a winning strategy..."Who are we more afraid the GOP will attack, let's not vote for that guy!!"

by southernman 2008-04-23 03:11PM | 0 recs
I also

   love how you call Obama a whiner while ignoring all the times Clinton has bitched about unfair treatment, mean questions...etc.. Simply unbelievable, your hypocrisy!!
by southernman 2008-04-23 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

We will find out in November.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-04-23 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

The first person on the scene with a "fingergate" diary now makes an argument that Obama isn't electable.  Why am I not surprised?

by rfahey22 2008-04-23 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Thanks for commenting, everyone.  I have to run to an appointment, but I will reply to comments in a few hours.

-- td

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-23 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

OK Troll, here's all you need to know:
From Washington Post/ABC News poll of polls (4/14/08):

11. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) Regardless of who you may support, who do you think has the better chance of getting elected president in November 2008?      

Clinton= 31%        
Obama= 62%  

BTW, your bird flip reference (debunked), and your use of the word "uppity" says to everyone "Look at me, I'm a troll!"  If you are indeed a democrat, we won't be missing your vote in the GE.

by haystax calhoun 2008-04-23 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

The mere fact that voters tell a pollter that they think a candidate is electable doesn't mean that this person actually is.  Nor does this polls measure electability. The question asked was who had a better chance at becomign president. Since Obama has a delegate lead and more money, he has a better shot at the nomination, which is an essential first step. It doesn't follow from that that he is electable though. (ALthough I believe that he is)

by Mayor McCheese 2008-04-24 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

You really nailed it TexasDarlin.  What a great, well-thought-out diary.  I hope this gets distributed wide and far, and I'll do my best.

by Gabriele Droz 2008-04-23 03:31PM | 0 recs
A lot of truthiness here

About Obama having trailed by 20, etc., because while there's a grain of veracity behind it, it skips over a whole bunch.  Namely, while it's true that he trailed big in March, those margins closed some time back.  Check this out from RealClearPolitics:

April 2
Quinnipiac Clinton by 9
PPP Obama by 2

April 3
Insider Advantage Clinton by 3

April 4
Morning Call [?] Clinton by 11
Strategic Vision Clinton by 8

April 6
ARG Clinton-Obama tie

So that's 6 polls over a 5-day period from 16-20 days before the election and the average was a 5-point lead for Clinton (an average which is bolstered by the way, by an outlier poll from something called "Morning Call").  That's about when Obama's huge media and barnstorming blitz began.  Despite the near $20 million and large number of personal appearances Obama expended in the state between then and now, he lost about 5 points from then up til the time of the vote.

I'd say it's about time to take a new look at the prevailing narrative that things inevitably swing Obama's way when he personally campaigns.  Now that the media is finally starting to notice campaign-long tendencies like this:

At the next train stop, I'm going to stand behind Sen. Obama when he speaks. When he's decrying the trivial distractions in politics, I think he may be crossing his fingers behind his back.

As the senator's campaign train wound from one speech where he denounced tit-for-tat politics to the next speech where he denounced tit-for-tat politics, his campaign hosted a conference call to engage in the practice the candidate was busy denouncing. I suppose it would have been an even greater act of chutzpah for the Obama campaign to host the conference call while Sen. Obama was denouncing that kind of behavior, but not much more of one.

We might just have to put that concept to bed.

by Trickster 2008-04-23 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: A lot of truthiness here

Since early Feb., only 2 PA polls showed a 20+ lead, PPP (we know how well they polled PA) and ARG, whose immediately prior poll showed a tie.  This is a myth which should be put to rest.  Who cares what the polls said last year.

Also to rest should go the myth things swing his way the more he campaigns.  Obama became the front-runner after SC.  Once the media buzz wore off, people got to see him up close - 6 weeks in PA - they didn't like what they saw.  He lost OH, TX, RI, and PA to a candidate who was written off for dead.  Not exactly the look of a winner.  WV, KY, and PR don't look good for him.  IN is a toss-up, Clinton got major endorsements out of MT today.  Obama supporters don't want to go back to the 90's - if we're not careful, we'll go back to '72 or '88...the only 50 state strategy our party will be stuck with is the number of states we lose.

by alamedadem 2008-04-23 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: A lot of truthiness here

He won TX

by hootie4170 2008-04-23 06:31PM | 0 recs
Correction

He won Texas.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-23 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: A lot of truthiness here

Uh, her Montana endoresments were very minor, the Kennedy one form last week may matter but that's it, the only big endorsements are the Gov., the 2 Senators, and Mayors of Butte, Billings, and Missoula, and only one of those has endorsed the Mayor of Missoula who introduced Obama 2 weeks ago.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-23 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: A lot of truthiness here

16-20 days is halfway through the 6 weeks that they went after Penn. He was behind 20+ points when they started to focus on it.

Nice use of the time line.

by IowaMike 2008-04-23 09:58PM | 0 recs
How true!

"I'd say it's about time to take a new look at the prevailing narrative that things inevitably swing Obama's way when he personally campaigns."

PA pretty much shot that belief to hell.

By the way, the Morning Call is the daily newspaper from Allentown.  It is the major newspaper of the Lehigh Valley and a pretty well respected one in the old Commonwealth.

by lombard 2008-04-23 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A lot of truthiness here

Obama can only "buy" so many points in any given state primary.  There is a ceiling, beyond which his advertising is tuned out, or there is a backlash.  I believe someone held a sign at a PA rally for clinton saying "You can't buy Pennsylvania."  People aren't stupid.

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-24 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

If it keeps up, neither will be electable.  People talking about all the "gates" that have come up with Obama and say that that won't happen with Hillary are fooling themselves.  Neither she nor Obama have been fully vetted and the Repubs will have a field day with whoever makes it through.  Nevermind, we're already doing it to ourselves, they need not bother.

by venavena 2008-04-23 03:46PM | 0 recs
I disagree

By the way, as an Obama supporter, I only use the -gate prefix when I want to describe something as ridiculous.  Bittergate, Fingergate, lapelgate are all silly and ridiculous.  The Rev. Wright issue is more serious and I treat it as such by not calling it "Wright-gate" or something similar.  I wonder if other Obama supporters do the same thing.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-23 07:37PM | 0 recs
Obama has closed the deal

It's called "Hillary cannot possibly pass him in pledged delegates, cannot fight at the convention because she won't control the committees(unless she really wants to make a scene) and will not be coronated by the Superdelegates because she's been losing that battle badly since February 5th."

It's too bad Clinton supporters haven't caught on that she will never be president.

This was her shot.  She blew it.  Ran a pathetic, nasty campaign.  And her and her degenerate husband will probably cost us the election in November because, well, that's just the kind of self-serving, self-absorbed, lying sociopaths they are.

If anyone wanted four more years of Bush, just vote for the power-hungery, secretive, untrustworthy Clinton in the race.

by jaywillie 2008-04-23 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has closed the deal

Sorry, I have to troll rate that, as an Obama supporter.  You had me until "pathetic," I started leaving at "degenerate" and you lost me for good at "sociopaths."  More Obama supporters need to troll rate crap like this.  It would go a long way to establishing credibility.  And maybe Hillary supporters would troll rate the vicious stuff on the other side then.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-23 07:39PM | 0 recs
Quoting Boston Herald columnists..

....to make your point is telling.  For those that don't know anything about Massachusetts, like the diarist, the Boston Herald is owned by the NY Post and is a right wing rag.  The columnist quoted by TD is a right wing talk show host.  

If Clinton supporters want to spread their doom and gloom can they please stop using Republican newspapers and Republican talk show hosts to do it?  

Also, if anyone things McCain is going to win MA in November they are talking crazy talk.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-04-23 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Hillary sure as hell isn't.

She has 50% negatives and 60% think she's a bald faced liar.

by dback 2008-04-23 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Actually 56% negatives, and a 20% trustworthy rating - perfect, let's make her our candidate!

by interestedbystander 2008-04-24 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

With numbers that bad, perhaps hillary's the one we should be calling McBush?

by dback 2008-04-24 02:01PM | 0 recs
Good question

Dumb way to look at it.

Chris Bowers (formerly of MyDD, and a hell of a lot smarter than all of us) looks at the issue, both tearing apart your demographics argument and suggesting concrete steps to guarantee victory in November here.

He also debunks the "Clinton leads in popular vote" myth here, and he uses sound logic and reasoning, more or less without bias.

Please, everybody, read these. They're good. And Chris is a lot smarter than us.

by Fitzy 2008-04-23 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Good question

That wasn't even an analysis. It was begging for a massage.

What dainty world was that, the one where arguments cease on June 4th? I thought I was reading a parody.

Cut off dates don't work for super delegates. Is there a cut off date for implosion? Or cut off date for something to be revealed about Obama? Or Hillary, for that matter?

Too many of the netroots leaders want everything to be like a small local primary, where the variables are few, and nice and tidy. The local candidate is needy of your help and doesn't ask many questions. That's never going to be the case on a national stage with warring factions of this caliber and intensity, so those suggestions, while cute, might as well be scribbled on paper airplanes.

Electability is about preference, not process. I can understand not wanting to accept that when you're involved, but from afar it's quite amusing. The best prepared team with a flawed QB is not going anywhere.

I wish every cycle could be like a second term midterm in '06, when even the mistakes were rewarded, but that's once per decade, at best.

Yes, Obama is electable. In a cycle like this, he's electable. Barely. So is Hillary. Barely. If we ran either one in a neutral cycle I wouldn't be paying any attention, because it would already be hopeless, like a duck hooked drive on the 18th tee at Pebble Beach.

We gave up on margin for error when Warner opted out and Edwards was ignored.

The black vote is ridiculously influential in our primaries. That's the frustration I feel right now. It's hardly Obama's fault, simply the way things unfold. Look at it from a mathematical perspective. There's no way Obama wins the black vote 97-3 against McCain. There's a natural ceiling there, conservative blacks and moderate blacks and blacks who simply reject our side. Obama might pull a point higher than our typical split but that's nothing compared to what he potentially forfeits elsewhere, particularly when topics like Wright and Bitter are packaged.

I keep old clips of old GOP commercials. It's a helpful reference point, when you're fed crappiola analysis that our primary has been divisive and negative. Obama can reach the White House but we can't underestimate what he'll need to withstand and deflect. That stump speech is increasingly familiar, and not evolving.

by Gary Kilbride 2008-04-23 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Good question

Electability is about preference, not process. I can understand not wanting to accept that when you're involved, but from afar it's quite amusing. The best prepared team with a flawed QB is not going anywhere.

It is the height of arroganze to say that Obama is a flawed QB.  He is beating Hillary.  In what universe is the loser of a contest stronger than the winner.

I wish every cycle could be like a second term midterm in '06, when even the mistakes were rewarded, but that's once per decade, at best.

Obviously you have not been following the congressional races in 2008.  All political anaylsts (Cook, Rothenberg, Sabato) are saying that '08 is likely to be better for Dems than '06.  Only one of our Dem. Senators are going to have a serious challenge against her.  Vulnerable Dems like Pryor (D-AR) and Johnson (D-SD) have either no opponent or an exceedingly weak opponent.  The House actually looks better than the Senate.  There are over 20 open Republican seats that we're going and were competing for a great majority of those.  And if you've followed the special election where Bill Foster took over Speaker Hastert's seat and Travis Childers forced a runoff (beating the Republican 49%-47%) in overwhelming Republican districts.

There's no way Obama wins the black vote 97-3 against McCain.

Really.  Kerry won the black vote 90-10 and Bush did the best among blacks than any other Republican in a generation.  There is no reason Obama will not be able to bump that up to somewhere around 95-5.

by nklein 2008-04-23 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Good question

I thought it was the height of silliness to say that the best prepared team with a flawed QB is going nowhere in the same year that Eli Manning won a super bowl. But maybe that's just me.

by Mobar 2008-04-24 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Good question

"Smart" as you claim this man to be, there are some serious problems in both links.

The seven steps to Democratic victory may be beneficial, but they ignore the fundamental demographic & electoral problems Barack Obama faces in November.  It says nothing about how Barack Obama can secure a victory in the states any Democrat needs firmly cemented (NJ, NY, Mass, CA, PA, MI) nor gives any insight on where and how Obama could break into traditionally GOP territory.

The popular vote article basically says, "the popular vote tally isn't pristinely perfect."  It doesn't however compare the persuasiveness of the imperfect popular vote metric to the substantially more convoluted pledged delegate metric.  You can lambast the very minor issues with tallying the popular vote (voter irregularities included) but at the end of the day, it's a far more reliable indicator of the people's will than an arbitrary system of delegate allocation based on districts past voting history and... caucuses.

by BPK80 2008-04-23 09:50PM | 0 recs
Just for fun

I just love the Very Serious Concern from an Unbiased Observer like Texas Darlin'

Here's some pre-primary predictions for HRC from some MyDD supporters:

[new] i lowered my (none / 0)
prediction from a 14% win to a 12% win.
Rise, Hillary, Rise
by sepulvedaj3

[new] The 39% mark is telling for Obama (none / 0)
60-40 split for Clinton.
Hillary: The Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:05:47 PM EST
[ Reply to This ]

...and just because somebody should get props:


[new] Re: Penn poll wrap-up (SUSA, PPP) Reverse Cling (none / 0)
55-45 Clinton.
by SuperTex on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:34:50 PM EST
[ Reply to This ]

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Just for fun

How could I forget "gotalife"


new] What a race. (2.00 / 1)

Clinton by 20 and lets put the rest the lie to rest that Obama is a new kind of politician using a new kind of politics.
[...]
by gotalife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:45:24 PM EST
[ Reply to This ]

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering

He's not electable. I know his supporters dont' want to face it but any candidate who insults the voters and has a campaign manager who implies that they don't want your vote are giving voters reason after reason not to vote for them. Add in the fact that he has failed to define himself and is now being defined by the GOP in a way that will be fatal in an election it all adds up to landslide for John McCain if Obama is the nominee.

by Ga6thDem 2008-04-23 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering

Have you noticed that no Republicans have criticized Hillary Clinton in about two months?

That tell ya anything?

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering

Hell, they're even endorsing her al la Scaife.

by dback 2008-04-23 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering

Did it mean something when they were attacking her all the time?

by Ga6thDem 2008-04-23 04:44PM | 0 recs
Back to the nineties?

Again? Really?

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 06:14AM | 0 recs
He's not electable....

Except as the Democratic nominee who has more votes, more delegates, and more states than the woman half the country distrusts or hates.

by dback 2008-04-23 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: He's not electable....

If he's the democratic nominee he'll lose to McCain. Winning the nomination with slim demographic support doesn't mean squat when it comes to the general election. John King even called him the new Dukakis.

by Ga6thDem 2008-04-23 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: He's not electable....

Wow! John King said that? On CNN? Then it MUST be true./snark

But if you think someone as reviled and distrusted as Hillary can win, you have to concede that someone as admired and trusted as Obama (who polls better than McBush and McClinton in that regard) can.

by dback 2008-04-23 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: He's not electable....

And Hillary with 56% negatives will win?  Hmm.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-23 10:32PM | 0 recs
Of course he is electable

and as soon as Hillary is retired to the loony bin, we can proceed.

by barnowl 2008-04-24 04:58PM | 0 recs
Doubtful Diary

Several thing cast tremendous doubt on this diary.  First, George Stephanopolous is as much a Democratic strategist and expert as Chris Matthews or Tim Russert.  They're all talking heads who had various ideas of what would have consisted of a "big" win for Hillary.  10 (in the real world, 9) points was not one of the numbers I heard as being "big."

Second, you mention all the demographics that Hillary won, but failed to mention that Obama made gains in each and every one of them compared to Ohio.

Then you don't pass up the opportunity bring up a widely debunked lie about him flipping her off during a speech.  That's where I knew I should have stopped reading.

Now, according to you, Hillary has the lead in popular vote, but you have to count FL and MI and ensure that you give him 0 votes out of MI.

The diary casts doubt only on Clinton's reasons for staying in this race, not Obama's electibility.

by shalca 2008-04-23 04:41PM | 0 recs
Is Hillary Clinton electable?

Not if she wins the Dem nomination even if Obama has the most pledged delegates and the popular vote.

If that were to happen, she can kiss the African-American vote good-bye in the general election rendering her unelectable.

Black people will NOT vote for Hillary if they perceive that the Dem nomination was stolen from Obama.

by puma 2008-04-23 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Hillary Clinton electable?

What if he has all those and becomes so toxic that he's losing to McCain by 20 pts due to his associations with Wright, Ayers etc? Should we still nominate him?

by Ga6thDem 2008-04-23 04:48PM | 0 recs
McCain has his own problems that 527's

will use for sure so it isn't JUST Obama...LOL!

To name a few:

1.  John McCain has said as late as 2000 "I HATE GOOKS".  Put this together with his not voting for the MLK Holiday, etc and a 527 could make McCain into the BIGGEST racist around.

2.  John McCain SOUGHT the endorsement of John Hagee and even was pleased about it.  John Hagee has said some HORRIBLE things about various groups including gays, Catholics, and Jews.  There will DEFINITELY be a 527 ad with McCain thanking Hagee with Hagee saying that the Catholic religion is "The Great Whore", etc.  How is THAT going to play in Pennsylvania?

3.  John McCain gave a speech in front of a CLOSED Ohio factory yesterday talking about how great NAFTA and Free Trade is.  Can't wait for that 527 ad running over and over in Ohio...LOL!

Also, Hillary has A LOT OF BAGGAGE that the GOP will exploit.  She has sooooooo much more baggage than Obama has by a mile.  Plus if it looks like she "stole" the nomination from Obama, she can kiss the African-American vote adios.

by puma 2008-04-23 05:04PM | 0 recs
Hillary winning the nomination

means all we will hear in the Fall is Monica, Monica, Monica, blow jobs, cigars, Whitewater, Bill's connections with foreign countries, Bill being "soft" on terrorists and that's why 9/11 happened, Bill's pardons including 2 members of the Weatherunderground, etc.  The list goes on and on...

Also, the GOP will exploit BIG TIME how the Dem party disenfranchised African-Americans by stealing the election from the first viable black candidate.  

by puma 2008-04-23 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain has his own problems that 527's

Don't forget that McCain called his wife a "c$nt."  That's the same wife he had an affair with in 1979 while still married to his first wife.  You know, the one who waited for him all those years he was a POW?  Yeah, he's a real great person that John McCain.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-23 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Hillary Clinton electable?

Its debatable then, if that's the cawse I would argue Hillary is alos probably behind McCain, and that the potential fallout from giving the nomination is catastrophic (losing the black vote for a generation, and becoming a permanent minority party).

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-23 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Hillary Clinton electable?

According to your reasoning then you can somehow win without latinos, working class whites, asian americans and women since they would be writing off the party for a generation.

I don't see Obama with a winning coalition. He has the Dukakis coaltion and has been bleeding support in every group other than AA's for 2 months now.

by Ga6thDem 2008-04-24 04:33AM | 0 recs
Tell ya what

If Obama is twenty points behind McCain in national polls on July 15, I will join your campaign to place someone else on the ballot.

Feel free to save this comment.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Hillary Clinton electable?

Hillary is the GOP's dream candidate. Nothing would bring out the GOP base like the chance to vote against Hillary.

by fugazi 2008-04-23 05:10PM | 0 recs
Yep she is

Her baggage plus disenfranchisement of African-American voters if it looks like she "stole" the election from Obama will be a DISASTER for the Dem party in the Fall.

by puma 2008-04-23 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Hillary Clinton electable?

Actually, blacks will vote for Clinton/Obama if the rules are followed. No one is talking about not following the rules. Hillary supporters will vote for Obama as long as she's not screwed.

I would advise Obama to go after Hillary but don't go after Bill. There is no upside to down-playing his accomplishments. That has already back-fired.

John Kennedy should be the template: Kill them with kindness. Johnson was far more experienced than Kennedy and attacked him viciously and Kennedy turned around and said that he only had kind things to say about Johnson. He then made him his VP. Obama is not going about this well.

He should be showing deference to Bill Clinton (yes, even if he's attacked by him). Obama supporters don't seem to know it but the Clintons have been extremely easy on Obama. Obama's team already sucessfully played the race card on the Clinton's and have folks thinking the Clinton's are racists when they are not. Obama now needs to pivot and start complimenting Bill's term in office (all he needs to do is tell the truth) and contrasting that with Bush.

If he keeps playing that game of conflating Clinton's and Bush's term he will still be a Senator next year. It's simply, show some F'ng respect and attack McCain and Bush, and to a lessor extent Hillary, but praise the hell out of Bill and you will win them over along with the lion's share of their supporters.

by mmorang 2008-04-23 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Hillary Clinton electable?

So Bill should be given a free pass and doesn't need to be held accountable for some of the comments he makes, c'mon....

by hootie4170 2008-04-23 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

by puma 2008-04-23 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

by puma 2008-04-23 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?


...Obama's arrogance, most vividly displayed recently when he "flipped off" Hillary Clinton...

A shame - your actually had some credibility, up until this point - but this silliness renders the entire diary worthless.

But thanks for providing an example of why Obamaiacs don't like Clintonistas!

by MattHucke 2008-04-23 04:45PM | 0 recs
Is Obama Electable?

nope

by Nobama 2008-04-23 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Obama Electable?

Not in 2008. He's unqualified and not ready for primetime.

by observer5 2008-04-23 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Obama Electable?

Yet he's all but won the nomination, and is at least even with John McCain in head-to-head polls.

Curious, that.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Obama Electable?

Nope is right.
We are a nation of gullible sheeple and we'll believe anyone yelling about hope and change. Substance is too difficult a concept for the weakened American intellect to grasp any more. We are a nation that worships celebrity, handsomeness, and popularity more than substance.

As far as I know, Obama has never taken a stand on anything except beating his opponent by whatever means he needs to use.  Guilt trips, attacks, purging petition lists, using the race card, arranging for fake fainting people at rallies, paying off super delegates, attempting to buy the election . . . it just gets worse the more you investigate his methods.  

Check into his background in Illinois.  You can bet the GOP is doing that right now.  

by shellius 2008-04-23 08:23PM | 0 recs
Obama is Electable enough to beat Hillary

in more States with more votes.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-04-23 10:26PM | 0 recs
Hillary Suffers From Rudi's Problem

The more people see of Hillary, the lower her numbers go.  In fact, her numbers plunge pretty badly.

That does not bode well for Hillary on the long road to November.

by bernardpliers 2008-04-23 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Suffers From Rudi's Problem

What are you smoking and can I have some?

by shellius 2008-04-23 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

The more people see Obama, the worse he fares as a candidate. It's very fortunate this campaign is going on as long as it has so far. Voters are getting a much better idea of who Obama really is and the polling is showing the fact. He has lost whole groups of voters that are vital in the GE. He's tainted now by his pastor and by his own comments. His performance in the last debate was laughable and his refusal to debate in NC is seen as weakness.

Please, Obama supporters, just go on doing what you do best! Hillary and her supporters are most grateful!

by Nobama 2008-04-23 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Like it or not, he'll be our nominee. Time to get on board.

by fugazi 2008-04-23 05:07PM | 0 recs
uh oh

Already leaks of the republican strategy are coming out, see this article in the Chicago Tribune today: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colum nists/chi-kass-23-apr23,1,4967065.column

The supers will be forced to consider this kind of onslaught in the fall, and weigh all other factors, such as unity of the party, as they make their decision.  

by 4justice 2008-04-23 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Clinton doesn't take the onslaught of assaults personally.

hee hee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kNbaCKYa PI

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 05:11PM | 0 recs
Feeling lousy....?

How is HRC gonna feel when North Carolina, Indiana, Montana and Oregon put her last argument out of reach, even counting the votes she got when she was alone on the ballot?

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Feeling lousy....?

Indiana and Montana polls favor Hillary, as is KY, WV, PR. Even NC is slipping away from certain for Obama. You might want to start thinking that it might just go the other way and Obama will fall short. He's already behind on the crucial for GE- Electoral votes, crucial for the DNC convention Super Delegates- despite his campaigns threatening and harassing them (As several African American SD  revealed to the press), and has now fallen behind on popular votes.

She wasn't "alone" on any ballot- nope not even in Michigan. Other candidates were on the ballot- and remember it was early on, so all candidates had a valid chance of being the candidate- yep, even Gravel.

Obama's campaign sent out many thousands of fliers in Michigan telling Obama voters to vote "uncommitted".

Obama was on FL's ballot and he was the only candidate that ran TV campaign ads there. Hillary still  won both states with no campaigning in either.)

I could also point out how many of Obama's wins were in caucuses not primaries, so therefore not a valid picture of voters choice. Caucuses  completely violate our election system of secret ballots and tend to be controlled by the wealthy elite.

by K1966 2008-04-24 09:50PM | 0 recs
Sobering Answer.

Yes he is electable.

Clinton is also electable.  

With all the shite the republicans have pulled and all the anger simmering in the electorate, you'd have to be pretty lame NOT to be electable.

And say what you will about our dem candidates, but neither of them are lame.

by DawnG 2008-04-23 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

I think what your trying to get at is that you don't want Obama to be electable. You want him to lose to John McCain, so you argue that he could lose to him, and then try to pass that off as fact, or even just a likely outcome, which it isn't.

This is getting desperate. I image as the door continues to close on the Clinton camp this will get even worse.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-23 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

You just summed this diary up to a tee.  Never trust an electability diary from someone peddling the very debunked smears which supposedly render the candidate unelectable.

by rfahey22 2008-04-23 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

I think what your trying to get at is that you don't want Obama to be electable

Ah, I always like to see things put into perspective so succinctly.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Yes, of course he is.

Clinton is winning in certain states because of the women's vote, just as Obama has won in certain states because of the AA vote.  No biggie.

He'll win what's needed in November.

by RussTC3 2008-04-23 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

NO, he is not

by engels 2008-04-23 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

A sobering question is definitely needed, because anyone that still thinks Barack flipped Hillary the bird is smoking the devils lettuce.

Thank you I'll be here all week.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-23 06:05PM | 0 recs
Can ANY one win the presidency

If more than half of the country thinks they are not trustworthy?

by highgrade 2008-04-23 06:08PM | 0 recs
Call Obama "Uppity"

And MyDD readers will make sure you make the rec list.  It's a bit vile, don't you think?

Not that I'm surprised.

by Drew 2008-04-23 06:13PM | 0 recs
A Sobering Question: Is Clinton Electable?

She starts a national nomination fight leading in name recognition, money, party insiders, party machines, experience, and polling. Starting with a 3rd place finish in IA to now, she is trailing in all of these except the machines and experience. Mathematically, she is done.

She can't beat a skinny freshman senator with a funny name who really hasn't gone after her, how can she possibly beat a well known more experienced than her well liked, loved by the media war hero.

She has run a lousy campaign.

Denial is the first stage of mourning. Anger is the second. Go ahead and attack.

by IowaMike 2008-04-23 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?
Nobody addresses the question of the AA vote and HRC...Why not??
It has been noted in order to win the GE a Democratic nominee needs to carry 70%+ of AA vote with average turnout.  She has been carrying about 11% in the primaries how does she turn this around if the SD's overturn the Pledged Delegate count and the AA community feels they have been robbed?
by hootie4170 2008-04-23 06:40PM | 0 recs
Someone addressed this a while back

comparing AAs to Hispanics - take home message - AAs are loyal Dems (i.e. back the nominee), Hispanics are not, they will switch to Repugs (despite Richardson's role, b/c he has less Hispanic backing  than HRC!).  

Sorry don't have the link but it is a mydd diary.

by Molee 2008-04-23 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone addressed this a while back

Yup. McCain has already flip-flopped on his own immigration bill, and their convention will likely include some Buchananesque moments on the subject, so I'm sure Hispanics will be voting for him in droves.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone addressed this a while back

They will be loyal if the think the primary was decided fairly...But what if SD's overturn the pledged delegates?

by hootie4170 2008-04-23 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Yes he is electable.

by markieparkie 2008-04-23 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

If O isn't electable, or ready for prime-time, then what is Hillary?  You can't claim you are the more electable candidate by losing.  You can't crap the bed with bad management, bad strategy, going from number one to justifying staying in the race, and claim to be the stronger candidate.  It is like saying "sure, I'm the loser but I'm really the winner."  Unless you want to change the rules.

by SovSov 2008-04-23 07:00PM | 0 recs
Texas Darlin' thanks for the good work

sorry this has turned into a troll-fest (isn't anything happening to keep them busy at the Daily Obama tonite?) - keep up the great work - you rock!

WE SHOULD BE SO LUCKY AS TO HAVE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AS OUR NEXT PRESIDENT!

by Molee 2008-04-23 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Darlin' thanks for the good work

Troll diary hosts beget troll posts.

by haystax calhoun 2008-04-24 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

NOPE...Not ready.

Can't win PA, can't win the election.

Hillary can win.  Hillary can beat John McCain and the GOP hate machine...Against this, Obama doesn't stand a chance.

by FISG 2008-04-23 07:16PM | 0 recs
hmmm

Hillary's biggest PA backer, Ed Rendell, said Obama can win PA. And Obama is stronger than Clinton in several key states, including Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, New Jersey, Illinois, and a lot of the purple west.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-23 07:21PM | 0 recs
Here's a different question

Electability arguments look forward into the future, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the past. Had the MSM treated Obama fairly and aired the Wright, Rezko, Ayers affairs earlier -- would Obama hold the lead he does today?

Personally speaking I think his campaign made a big strategic error by hiding these things early.

Thoughts?

by BostonIndependent 2008-04-23 07:34PM | 0 recs
Hillary wins by 9 points and 10 delegates...

and suddenly the sky is falling for Obama?

To make your argument plausible there has to be a landslide victory and a huge net delegate gain.

Neither happened.  

by optimusprime 2008-04-23 07:40PM | 0 recs
Ugh

Between calling Obama "uppity" and repeating the debunked "finger-gate" myth, this is a pretty weak diary.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-23 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

"Uppity attitude" wow, hey out of curiousity, if I siad that Hillary weould be doing better if she wasn't such a bitch would that also be cool and get me on the recc'd list, or would that be crossing the line?

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-23 07:55PM | 0 recs
That was crossing the line : )

by cjbardy 2008-04-23 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Obama gets most of the black vote and most of the college vote, except college students don't vote. So Obama win's 30% at most in the general election + Randi Rhodes and her posse, and that's not enough.

President John McCain will be taking the oath in January.
Obama supporters are all too happy to give it to him.
Superdelegates -- are you paying attention?  If Obama hadn't gotten 92% of the black vote in PA, Hillary would have DESTROYED him in PA.  

by shellius 2008-04-23 07:56PM | 0 recs
The Obama I would vote for

would belong to a biracial church with an enlightened pastor.
(Then I would believe "unifier" wasn't just a sales pitch.)

The Obama I would vote for would never allow supporters to swarm the democratic blogs, and harass and run out supporters of his competitor.  (Then I would believe "change" wasn't just marketing hype.)

The Obama I would vote for would respect his voters.  He would not run behind their backs and tell Canada he was just talking down to them.  Or tell San Francisco elite, they were embittered and "clinging" to what they feel to be values and traditions.

The Obama I would vote for, does not exist.

But Hillary Clinton does.  Thank God.
The Clinton's have a track record of working hard.  They excel.
They left this country far in better shape than they found it.

This kind of talent is a rarity.
It is hard to believe that the democrats do not realize how lucky we are to have the chance to have Hillary Clinton as our president.

I think future generations will look back and wonder what the f*k were were thinking.

by internetstar 2008-04-23 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama I would vote for
would belong to a biracial church
Well then its a good thing Barack bleongs to a church with a white, female preacehr, when are you going to volunteer for Obama?
by Socraticsilence 2008-04-23 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama I would vote for

"The Obama I would vote for would never allow supporters to swarm the democratic blogs, and harass and run out supporters of his competitor."

You clearly have never visited TaylorMarsh.com or Hillaryis44.com

I don't blame Hillary Clinton for those sites.  I don't see how you can blame Obama for some of his overzealous supporters.

by shalca 2008-04-23 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Why can't Hillary Clinton close the deal?

If she's so damn electable, when is she going to win this election?

This is getting sad.

by Brannon 2008-04-23 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Neither candidate can win without the superdelegates.  

No one can "close" it without them.  Obama has no more ability to win the nomination by normal means than Hillary.  

That's what the superdelegates are for.  They are the ones who will determine which one is more electable.  That's their job.  They should pick Hillary, because if all the votes are counted, she is ahead in the POPULAR VOTE.

It shouldn't be Obama, as again, was proved in PA and Ohio and Florida and California and other BIG states.  Obama has won the little Red states that won't vote Democrat anyway.  His "wins" are mostly meaningless for  the General election.  He can't put it away any more than she can.  I think Obama should drop out and concede to the more electable candidate, who is Hillary.

Unless you really want a President John McCain, that is.  In which case, by all means, support Obama. He's loved by the GOP right now. They have already put ads together using Obama's coattails to try to drag down other Democrats.  Obama has enough negative material out there already for the GOP to use in ads all summer and fall.

by shellius 2008-04-23 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

No one's ever looked past the razzle dazzle to explain how exactly what amounts to a short career as a state senator and an embarrassing inability to do more than summarize Democratic talking points will look good against a distinguished career as a US Senator, deal-brokerer, and war hero.

by bowiegeek 2008-04-23 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Not to mention summarizing republican talking points when going negative against hillary.  oh, oops, he's never negative.

by oh puhleeze 2008-04-23 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

That's true. And if people have a chance to look at his healthcare plan again going up against McCain's HSA plan, they'll see that McCain's plan makes more sense fiscally than Obama's where it certainly doesn't against Clinton's. After having destructively bashed progressive health economics principles, Obama will have to grasp for straws to explain how he expects to exert top-down control over a crucial American market without a mandate.

by bowiegeek 2008-04-23 10:10PM | 0 recs
A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

It's only sobering if you're drunk on the fantasy that Hillary can be the nominee.

For ordinary people it's a ridiculous question.

And since Hillary couldn't even win her party's nomination, she is obviously unelectable.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-23 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

As always TD right on the money...BO should pack it up and take his pledged delegate lead, popular vote lead, states won lead, all his money, the AA vote, the young vote, the college educated vote, his Independent voters, his SD endorsements, The Boss, MoveOn.org,  and the whole shabang and drop out because he is unelectable...Geez I don't know what this guy is thinking.....

by hootie4170 2008-04-23 08:44PM | 0 recs
Here's an Answer

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/us/pol itics/24clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogi n

But God forbid, you would rely on those pesky little things called "facts."

by spmaverick01 2008-04-23 09:17PM | 0 recs
Undecided -- SDs? -- breaking for Hillary?

It would not be surprising, therefore, if super delegates begin to break towards Clinton as the primary season finally winds down.

Heh. That's been the pattern in many states. At the last minute, the Undecideds break for Hillary.

by 1950democrat 2008-04-23 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

by ragekage 2008-04-23 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

Can you please give an explanantion for your choice of the word uppity? You are well aware of what you are doing here, and I find it disgraceful.  You are one of the first to cry sexism when Hillary is disparaged, and yet you indulge in this nonsense?

by interestedbystander 2008-04-23 10:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

an explanation?  I don't get your implication.

from Dictionary.com:

  1. affecting an attitude of inflated self-esteem; haughty; snobbish.
  2. Taking liberties or assuming airs; presumptuous
  3. elitist, snobby

Sometimes a word is just a word.

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-24 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

Really - because it sure sounds like a racist code word to me.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-24 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

I don't see the "uppity". Was that what she edited for "clarity"?

She's been banned before. And after that she posted some RedState spam about Obama being a secret muslim (among other lovely racist slurs) before she took it down. My guess is the admins are warning her, but don't want to ban her again because of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from her fellow poison-spewers.  Texas Darlin is quite a hater, and frequently the rage-filled id escapes through the filter.

I don't know how they imagine all this whining and rage-filled, incoherent invective would beat McCain. But then Clinton already lost, so it's all academic.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

Yep - the uppity has gone.  I've followed TD's diaries - she knows exactly what she's doing.  She's a racist and I cannot for the life of me understand why she hasn't been permanently banned.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-24 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

And why do you think she is a racist?  I have discussed some of her diaries with her and I don't see it.  I am thinking that the word "racist" is being used to describe people only when they dare to talk about racial issues.  Just because the topic is brought up, doesn't mean they think other races are inferior, which is really what a racist is.  I don't think that only members of the offended race, are the only ones allowed to talk about it.  That certainly doesn't serve to bridge any divides, in my opinion.

by cjbardy 2008-04-28 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

Your accusations against TexasDarlin are absolutely unwarranted and I am TRing you for your slander!

TD is neither a Republican,  a poison-spewer nor a hater.

It is really sad that you and others on this board like you, find it so easy to come to come to these conclusions, and paint anyone who doesn't agree with you with hateful descriptions.

So far, I am not to thrilled with all the Hope and Change Obama has brought.  I wish he would go home and take it with him!

by cjbardy 2008-04-24 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

I'm only going by what her history here. I don't know her personally.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

This uppity attitude likely explains why 32% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania told a pollster that they would never vote for Barack Obama.

Texas Darlin, Clinton Supporter, MyDD

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

You know... you are really reaching here.  I think you are a little I am presumptuous to think that is the way most people use the word.  I know I have used the word many times, and when I use it, is with regard to people I consider snobby.

by cjbardy 2008-04-24 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

Just because a word can be used in a different context doesn't stop it being a code word.  I can assure you that in the context of  "uppity" being used to describe a black man challenging a high status white woman, it is offensive.  TD has previous on this - and she edited it out when called on it.  Googling the words "uppity black man" will garner you nearly 100,000 hits.  But if you're not convinced - try using it today to describe any black people you meet - see how you get on.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-24 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

The problem is, you are making an assumption that we all have the code words, when we don't.  Maybe instead of reacting, the word will lose its strength.  Certainly, I didn't know it was a code word for anything but "snobby".

by cjbardy 2008-04-28 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

Sorry, but you are either tone deaf or clueless if you don't know the historical use of the word "uppity".  I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and not call you a racist.

Here's a little knowledge for you to help you refrain from using this work again with reference to African-Americans.  Lots of places you can go to find out about its use in the English language, but here's a good source from the Howard University newspaper:

"What is an Uppity Negro? Historically, it is a black person who has been reprimanded or persecuted for voicing his dissatisfaction with or rejection of the sub-standard treatment of himself or other black people.

The term was very popular among slave masters who often used the term to refer to blacks that were rebellious or, in other words, blacks who required and demanded respect, fair treatment and regard."

There you go.  

by haystax calhoun 2008-04-24 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

yes, I did change the word based on this comment after doing more research. There was no warning from admin.  My intent was not racist, however.  And the comments in this thread that attack me as a racist have been reported to admin.  the mydd guidelines forbid attacks on other bloggers.

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-24 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?
Well I think the attacks were prompted by your use of the word, which you later edited out.  You can't blame posters for taking issue with this.
Thanks for removing it, but maybe some explanation could've been offered in your diary.
by haystax calhoun 2008-04-24 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

Make sure you mention your "secret Muslim" spam cut'n'paste.

Amazing how often you post racist crap without intending to.

Isn't it?

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

This uppity attitude likely explains why 32% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania told a pollster that they would never vote for Barack Obama.

Texas Darlin, Clinton Supporter, MyDD

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Uppity? Uppity? Uppity?

It was also used against the 19th century feminists by the 19th century misogynist creeps. So it's a triggering code word for modern feminists as well.

by K1966 2008-04-24 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Is Hillary electible.?

Really, is there anyone in America's Heartland who would vote for a girl??

I think not.

by wrb 2008-04-23 10:53PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Hmm, if they won't vote for a woman, which they have a record of doing then what does that say about Obama? You're pretty much conceding that they guy is unelectable.

by Ga6thDem 2008-04-24 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Not conceding, rather making fun of the racist assumptions underlying this diary.

Apparently the diarist must think Biden and Dodd were the only wise choices.

by wrb 2008-04-24 09:41AM | 0 recs
I see the rules now...

Anything that anybody says that is contrary to the world view of an Obama supporter (note the lack of any slur) is troll rated.  

No one mandates that you like Hillary Clinton, nor that you agree with every diary, however, civil courtesy would be nice, as would reserving troll-rating for comments that include name-calling of diarists or posters, or of candidates (and I am talking about words like "bitch").  

Try as you might, you are not going to censor opposing opinions, and we will say what needs to be said, whether it be pointing out the strengths of Clinton, or the weaknesses of Obama.

Don't you yet realize, Obama supporters, that your mob mentality makes it that much less likely that ANY Clinton supporter would end up voting for Obama should he be the nominee?

By the way, great diary, TexasDarlin.  Despite the fact that some people don't want to see Obama's weaknesses, they are there.

by cjbardy 2008-04-23 11:00PM | 0 recs
negative?

despite waging an aggressive and negative  campaign against Hillary Clinton,

If you want an aggressive and negative campaign against Hillary Clinton, just read almost every progressive blog, including this one, and that's nothing compared to what the Republicans would do.

But Obama has been a gentleman and has demanded and enforced such behavior from his campaign.

What you call "negative" in PA was nothing more than an extremely restrained reaction to Hillary's frying pan throwing rants. If you guys can't see that Hillary has been unscrupulously pelting Obama with any and every bit of slime she can possibly dredge up ...

I'm just speechless ... and deeply deeply disappointed in Hillary, Bill and especially in all of you.

by obsessed 2008-04-23 11:06PM | 0 recs
Re: negative?

Oowh.  Your style is hot when you're angry.

by Mardarkin 2008-04-24 12:46AM | 0 recs
and furthermore ...

Why do you think it is that almost every progressive blog and radio host is so fervently against Hillary? It certainly didn't start out that way. Everyone from Ed Schultz to DailyKos refused to take sides or say a word against her for a very very long time. It wasn't until she went NEGATIVE AS HELL. It wasn't until she THREW THE PROGRESSIVE BASE UNDER THE BUS.

That's us, mydd dwellers. Look in the mirror people. Think about your core values. Think about your positions on the issues. You're progressives - you know you are. And you've gotten into bed with the corrupt, spineless, hopelessly compromised inner sanctum of the freaking democratic party when light at the end of the tunnel is shining out like a beacon if you just disentangle yourselves from your rat's nest of perversely illogical talking points and look around.

by obsessed 2008-04-23 11:15PM | 0 recs
An additional sobering exit poll

Fifty-five percent of those voting in PA saw Obama as the eventual winner of the nomination. Twenty-two percent of Clinton supporters felt Obama would eventually win.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIfAw kkooVUzxAU-nYymJicF5kXwD907BUP00

'tis a shame the question in the diary was not something along the lines of - "Should Obama win, how can we Clinton supporters help him win the general election?".

(although perhaps those people who regard him as "uppity" have reasons not to want him to win a general election)

by My Ob 2008-04-23 11:37PM | 0 recs
What do I hear in MyDD?

ECHO ECHO ECHO    E   C   H   O     ECHO ECHO ECHO

Its like we are in an echo chamber

by optimusprime 2008-04-24 12:04AM | 0 recs
Oh, the negativity

What a garbage diary. "Conjecture...conjecture...debunked claim...more nonsense"  That this makes the recommended list is a joke.  I'll just post this and leave this place.

He's winning so far, I don't see the problem.  Both Democratic candidates are electable.  

BTW, if Hillary wins the nomination, I'll do everything I can to make sure she wins the presidency.

by clad 2008-04-24 12:04AM | 0 recs
And look, it's on the rec list.

Hyperbolic conjecture and debunked claims supporting an argument which, given only a moment's objective research, would fall on its face.

But of course, this is MyDD.  

If it's good for Hillary, who cares about the objective, huh?

by Mardarkin 2008-04-24 12:44AM | 0 recs
You make John McCain so very happy.

Sen. Obama is going to be our nominee. The sooner we get behind that and work toward defeating John McCain the better our chances in November. Who's working against this? Core Hillary supporters, together with the Republican party. That alone should tell us something.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-24 03:45AM | 0 recs
Re: You make John McCain so very happy.
Sen. Obama is going to be our nominee. The sooner we get behind that and work toward defeating John McCain the better our chances in November. Who's working against this? Core Hillary supporters, together with the republican party.

Right, but I do think you got one point wrong.  It's not 'core Hillary supporters' so much as 'a tiny fringe of dishonest Hillary supporters' such as this diarys author.  
by map 2008-04-24 08:18AM | 0 recs
I very much hope that's true.

The steady drumbeat of Republican sources for Hillary is getting to me.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-24 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Not Electable. Here's Why

Barack Obama - Subplots of Operation Board Games

Monday, 21 April 2008, 10:24 am
Column: Evelyn Pringle

The investigation dubbed "Operation Board Games," into the influence peddling within the cesspool of corruption that encompasses Illinois politicians from both major parties, has developed into multiple subplots, many of which feature Barack Obama.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S0 0295.htm

See also

Feds: Witness Says Rezko Tried to Oust Fitzgerald

U.S.: Fundraiser said he could call in Rove to fire prosecutor

By Bob Secter and Jeff Coen | Tribune reporters April 24, 2008

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local /chi-rezko-rove-fitzgerald-web-apr24,0,2 332070.story?page=1

by Tennessean 2008-04-24 04:26AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Clinton supporters talk about what the Republicans would do, are doing (at least in NC)to Obama

If Clinton were the nominee, FOX inc
would have 24/7
MONICA  MONICA  MONICA  MONICA  MONICA

They were really pleased when their crew impeached Clinton...they were really pissed when the Senate in a lucid moment, did not convict...

It would be all about Bill...
Ah..you say but it is Hillary not Bill who is the Candidate. They won't care They Love guilt through association.

They hate...I mean hate Hillary because she is a strong woman candidate,who is married to Bill.

They Hate Obama because he is a strong bi-racial candidate who looks..you know Black...

by nogo war 2008-04-24 04:43AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Do you really think anyone cares anymore about Monica?  Besides, you might be too young to remember, but Hillary's highest favorability ratings were during that crisis...

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-24 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

Yes the do care about Monica, and Vince, and every other Clinton scandal person.

You are a racist TexasDarlin. How dare you act like African-Americans are not important.

HOW FUCKING DARE YOU.

by regina1983 2008-04-24 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable?

but Hillary's highest favorability ratings were during that crisis...

Um... yeah, and now that she's out on her own and only playing the victim card part time, her negatives are through the roof and she lost the Democratic nomination.

That oughta tell you something about her "electability".

But that's all academic now.

Your update is incredibly dishonest (like your pseudonym... how are things in LA?). You edited out "uppity" not for any problem of "clarity", unless it was that your racism was too clear to everyone looking at this site.

But I guess since you're a racist, being a liar pales by comparison

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 11:49AM | 0 recs
Monica? Monica? Monica?

BORING--been there and went through that.  Besides McCain may have the same problem and his wife has had other difficulties.  There would be a stand-off there.

Obama is the fresh meat--that is who they want to run against.  His stuff is still unfolding--and if you read the Chicago press, it is clear that no one can save him from the Republicans.  Sex is one thing....what went on in Chicago to get him where he is will be something else again.

by The Smoldering Crone 2008-04-24 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Monica? Monica? Monica?

Obama is the fresh meat--that is who they want to run against.  

Then why have they been attacking Obama for the last month and giving Hillary Tuzla Clinton a free pass?

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 11:51AM | 0 recs
whine, whine, whine

When you start with every advantage imaginable and blow it. When your campaign organization looks like the dysfunctional family on a day time soap opera. When you complain non-stop from the beginning of the campaign about how unfair the press is and how you are being bullied by everyone from party activists to debate moderators. WHen you are behind in every metric.

Well then the only thing you can come up with is theoretical questions of electability based on nothing. Wonder why the national polls of Clinton McCain match ups versus Obama McCain match ups don't confirm your fantasy conjectures?

There is nothing in Hillary's real world performance that would lead any one to believe she is a stronger candidate. If she is the stronger candidate she will win and that is not going to happen. The stronger candidate will win and that would be Obama.

by hankg 2008-04-24 05:58AM | 0 recs
Texas darlin

So in your fantasy world, the candidate that has the LEAST amount of delegates, the LEAST amount of states won, BEHIND in the popular vote, raises the LEAST amount of money, has the LEAST amount of superdeleg endorsements within the last sixty days, and has the LEAST amount of people attending rallies-is the most electable?

I'll take the bong once your done with it.

by april34fff 2008-04-24 07:03AM | 0 recs
Uppity?

Uppity?  Are you serious?

Ladies and gentleman, I have found the ass-end of the donkey.

by Rumproast 2008-04-24 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable? [upda

Texas Darlin, along with linfar, alegre, grendel was a jackass and the rest are morons, this diary is simply more proof.

Reality has a well known Obama bias.

by DemUnity 2008-04-24 10:23AM | 0 recs
Now this is funny

and ability to empathize with common folk

I don't think "common folk" use phrases like "common folk".

But then, "common folk", don't often live in affluent LA suburbs while affecting a "folksy" Texas persona, drive BMWs, pay accountants several hundred dollars per hour to do their taxes, or need to be reminded to tip the minimum wage-worker at Starbucks who passes them their daily latte through the window of the Beemer.

I've read through this mean-spirited, dishonest dreck a couple of times, still don't see the "uppity" bit. Is that she "edited for clarity"?

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Now this is funny

Yes, that's what "edited for clarity" means. Here's the original sentence:

This uppity attitude likely explains why 32% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania told a pollster that they would never vote for Barack Obama.

by Rumproast 2008-04-24 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Now this is funny

ah, a racist and a coward.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Now this is funny

...and a fairly typical online Hillary supporter.

by Rumproast 2008-04-24 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable? [upda

Answering the title of the thread, of course he is electable. He is much more electable than either Clinton or McCain. Ask a simple question and get a simple and sober answer.

by wasder 2008-04-24 10:35AM | 0 recs
Edited for clarity

"Update: Text in the middle of this diary has been edited for clarity"

Changing the word "uppity" to "dismissive" isn't done for clarity, it's done to avoid further embarrassment and normally would have been followed with an apology.

by Rumproast 2008-04-24 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable? [upda

The word uppity is used by older white racists like Taxas Darlin to signal to their brethren that a black person has gotten too big for their britches.

It's a shame they're going to lose, Hillarybots.

by DemUnity 2008-04-24 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable? [upda

TR'd for slandering this diarist.

by cjbardy 2008-04-24 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable? [upda

Slander this you troll!

by DemUnity 2008-04-25 10:29AM | 0 recs
simple answers to sobering questions:

No.

by Thirsty Gator 2008-04-24 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question

I really don't think Obama is electable. While his coalition of rich Democrats and African-Americans works in the primary, the general is a different story. He has serious problems with blue-collar voters and white males, which will kill us in the general.

When I see polls that show him trailing McCain 62-29 in my state of Kentucky it give me serious pause. We are trying to win some downticket races here!!

by RDemocrat 2008-04-24 11:22AM | 0 recs
Electability]

Hillary isn't electable. If she was, she would have won the Democratic primary by now owing to the fact she won those big states and all those demographic groups one supposedly needs to become president. How come she has't sealed the deal. Why can't she build a broader coalition and win black voters, educated voters and young voters.  She only won Pennsylvania and Ohio because of Rush Limbaugh encouraging Republicans to turn democrat and vote for her.

by markieparkie 2008-04-24 11:35AM | 0 recs
Comparing Clinton vs Obama primary results...

to GE outcomes is a stretch

by optimusprime 2008-04-24 12:18PM | 0 recs
X

I fail to understand how the person who by any conceivable measure is losing is somehow more electable.

I know Republicans who would wait in a line for a week to be able to vote against Hillary. Her negatives are off the charts. People just don't like her.

It's unfair and unjust, but it's reality.

by PSUdan 2008-04-24 12:23PM | 0 recs
ERROR

Reality not allowed here, sorry.  This is the Miss Frigidaire Fan Club.

by McNasty 2008-04-24 01:20PM | 0 recs
I am sooo sick if HRC supporters pushing this

here is a news flash, I DON'T CARE!!!!!!!  If he is or not, because I vote my values and Obama represents me and what I believe.  The Hillary/McCain camp does not represent what I believe and they don't share my priorities.  So if my candidate (Obama) loses the general election I know I'll be able to sleep at night because I vote for what I believe for ONCE instead of the lesser of two evils.

by HGM MA 2008-04-24 02:29PM | 0 recs
TexasDarlin

Looks like a lot of us caught the word "uppity" before you quietly edited it out.  The admins had to delete one of your racist diaries before.  I don't know why they let trolls like you come back.  Jerome must be some kind of masochist, the more vile his site becomes the more turned on he gets.

by Skaje 2008-04-24 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: A Sobering Question: Is Obama Electable? [upda

Well...perhaps if his own party stalwart wasn't assassinating his chances!

But let flip this question: Is she electable?

She has basically cast off all the states that Obama won, diminishing them as unimportant and/or black voters.  Truly insulting and certainly not getting enough reflection from yourself.

by jv 2008-04-24 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Jokes will kill him. Heres one:

You're the one who claims to be pals with Al Gore, right?

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 07:13PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------