Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Quinnipiac Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania


Quinnipiac University

Florida
n=1,419 RV
McCain 45, Obama 41... Clinton 48, McCain 41

Ohio
n=1,244
McCain 44, Obama 40... Clinton 48, Mccain 41

Pennsylvania
n=1,667
Obama 46, McCain 40... Clinton 50, McCain 37

 

Comments
kingsbridge77:

This poll is bad news for Obama; good for McCain.

____________________

killias2:

This just confirmed what we already knew. Obama will win PA, no problem. Florida is unlikely. While this shows Ohio and Florida to be close, I doubt that. I think Ohio leans McCain but could lean Obama after the nomination process is over.

In an Obama-McCain matchup, the real swing states are: Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, and 1 or 2 EV from Nebraska. If he picks up most of these states and all the states he is solid in, he will take this election.

____________________

killias2:

This just confirmed what we already knew. Obama will win PA, no problem. Florida is unlikely. While this shows Ohio and Florida to be close, I doubt that. I think Ohio leans McCain but could lean Obama after the nomination process is over.

In an Obama-McCain matchup, the real swing states are: Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, and 1 or 2 EV from Nebraska. If he picks up most of these states and all the states he is solid in, he will take this election.

____________________

damitajo1:

Obama could even lose PA if more of Clinton's women supporters abandon the Dems. That's the only thing distinguishing PA from the other states listed. So Obama is going to have to get the angry white women's vote. This should be FUN to watch. *stocks up on popcorn*

____________________

adocarbog:

Ohio at this time is a toss up. Once Democrats finally decide on Obama and Hillary feminist supporters (I fully support feminism) get over the fact that HRC was not able to secure the nomination they will move in time to Obama as he is close to their issues while McCain is not.

FL poll is actually a very good improvement for Obama as it is low single digits and not double digits as usual.

Interesting is this improvement will hold as he is not in FL.
Polls in the next two weeks will be the ones to watch.

____________________

killias2:

This is the closest PA poll released since the PA primary process was just wrapping up (an understandably emotional time for Clinton supporters), and we still don't have a Democratic nominee.

Obama will not lose PA. There's no way in heck he's going to lose PA. McCain will lose North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and New Hampshire before Obama loses PA.

____________________

axt113:

Hillary supporters are creating a problem for Obama, he would be ahead in all three if not for the defection by Hillary dems.

I hope they enjoy losing legalized abortions and a wrecked economy

____________________

BLeigh82:

I think people need to relax. I am a supporter of Senator Obama, and I admit that recent polling has given an advantage to Senator Clinton in many key states. This doesn't surprise me, because she is a strong candidate and this is a year built for a Democrat to take the office. I also don't see this as some sign of immenent doom for Senator Obama in the general or reason for the Super Delegates to panic and throw all their support to Senator Clinton.

That said, we also need to remember that the general election is still over 5 months away...the Democratic nomination has not been locked up and the party has yet to begin any kind of real unifying to this point...Senator Obama has been under attack on two sides for well over a month now from both Senator McCain and Senator Clinton...let's also not forget that the GOP would become quite energized if they knew that Senator Clinton was the nominee (there is a history there) and I don't think that plays out in any of these polls because it looks like Senator Obama has the nomination at this point.

I think it is also fair to say, that if you looked back at primary polling from a couple of months before Super Tuesday and Senator Clinton almost surely had huge advantages. At that time, not many people would have given Senator Obama any chance of truly competing for the nomination.

It would be foolish for anyone to count out Senator Obama so soon when the general election is still quite some time away. Senator Clinton and her campaign did just that, and look where they are now. Say what you want about the man and his policies, you are certainly entitled to that as we all are in this great country, but those of you who are using this weeks polling as some end all be all in regard to his general election chances are certainly jumping the gun.

____________________

Adam_Il:

Well, there is an easy way to get to the White house and there is a hard way. Unfortunately, democrats seems to be taking the hard way. Obama is perhaps the only chance Mccain has, otherwise I can't see a democrat losing the presidential election at this moment.

____________________

Nickberry:

In response: If Obama is being attacked by both Clinton and McCain... it should also be observed that both Obama and Clinton continue to attack McCain... and McCain and Obama are both attacking Clinton... ergo equity.

The GOP are actually less energized by Hillary these days (they "begrudgingly" admire her tenacity and strength) and more focused on Obama because he has presented himself as the more liberal candidate and has the added bonus of his 20 year association with Wright and black theology.

Finally, we all know that these are polls... like ongoing game scores. They indicate trends but not the final outcome... yet we all make "educated' predictions of that outcome.

____________________

There are two distinct types of female Hillary supporters who won't vote for Obama.

I'm one type - feminists who not only won't vote for him but are advocating that position to others. Cruising around the web I'm really quite surprised to find just how many of us there are. Pleasantly surprised, that is. Overall, we're just a tiny sliver of the vote. We're pure base and probably geographically dispersed enough to not make any difference electorally.

The other type is independent swing voting women in the Philly suburbs etc. who trust Hillary but not Obama. They will be a big part of the reason he'll lose PA, OH and FL. These voters feel secure with Hillary because she's sensible and has experience. Obama is too callow for them. (And their male counterparts will go for McCain just as they went for Bush in 2004 and 2000).

The thing is - Obama is abysmally bad at reaching out to constituencies that he feels have rejected him. He just can't bring himself to do it. It must be a psychological thing that's bled over to his staff.

His campaign knew he had a problem with white women from the day after New Hampshire, and not once - not once - did they adjust their message strategy to try to reach out. I kept waiting for him to make a big speech about women's rights + need for services (child care, violence, family planning, etc) to neutralize some of Hillary's comparative advantage, but the best they could manage was some half-assed surrogacy by Kate Michelman. He couldn't even bring himself to make a decent statement on choice. He couldn't bring himself to mention sexism along with racism and homophobia. This would have been so easy for him to do - the press would have eaten it up. But somehow he couldn't do it.

Likewise with writing off the white working class - when Obama feels dissed, he disses back. He tries to cut the person / group off. We saw it in his body language in the last three-way debate, saw it with his non-greeting of Hillary at the SOTU, and we can see it in his campaign strategy.

I think axt113 approximates Obama's strategy perfectly; this is the approach I think they will take. Just wait for women to "remember" that Roe is in jeopardy, and they'll come around of their own accord.

The problem with that strategy, of course, is that we're already quite aware of the state of the Supreme Court, thank you very much. We're the ones who remind you, not the other way around.

As much as I rue the stupidity of the Democratic party in not backing the more qualified and more strategically sound choice for nominee, I'm looking forward to not having a dog in the fight for the general. I'm stocking up on popcorn right now.

____________________

Nickberry:

The polls show that Hillary is the stronger candidate against McCain in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. No surprise there.

The polls also show that these three states may become battleground states between Obama and McCain. We know that Ohio and Florida can and will vote GOP. But now because of demographics (age, gender, religion, rural, conservatism, etc.) that McCain has an opportunity in Pennsylvania.

The Obama campaign's present mode is to get more voters registered and a bigger turnout in these states (youth, African American, college-educated... i.e. his base), but I have read of no strategy yet to get votes from those outside his base. Two GOP pundits think that Obama's only hope will to include Hillary on the ticket.

P.S. Any woman as VP is NOT the same as Hillary. Pro-choice is NOT the only women's issue.

____________________

Nickberry:

Excellent observations... Ciccina.

I will add that the Obama campaign has a new spokesWOMAN (Linda Douglass). Yep, that is what she and Obama call HER.

Yes, I also was waiting on Obama to truly address women's issues... yet he instead mocked Hillary in a way that mocked all women.

By the way... Obama on EQUAL PAY DAY promised that he would make sure that women got paid equally when they did MEN's jobs. That he used that stereotypical term to categorize jobs by gender tells women a lot... aka Obama doe not have a clue.

____________________

BLeigh82:

Nickberry:

The guesses are perfectly fine. It's just that, they are coming off more as truths. (and that is from supporters from both camps who comment on this site)

Personally, I think both Senator Obama or Senator Clinton will win the election. I also believe both would use different strategies to do so...but, much can change, so we shall see. I guess that is part of the fun of analyzing these polls. Don't you agree?

Also, I'm not sure it is fair to say that Senator McCain has been attacking Senator Clinton on an equal footing in comparison to Senator Obama. I can't even remember the last time he called her out...which makes sense of course, because she isn't likely to be the nominee so why would he bother at this point. I could be wrong on that though so feel free to correct me.

At least in my opinion, since the Wisc. Primary, Senator Obama has faced numerous attacks as a result of his front runner status and then of course the Rev. Wright fiasco. All expected, but I also think it has made things easier for Senator Clinton who has been smart at times in hows she has used the last couple of months to her advantage. She certainly has proven to be very adept at playing this complicated game of politics, that is for sure!

You could be right about the GOP being less enthusiastic in their bashing of Senator Clinton...but the ones I talk to don't seem to think any more highly of her now than they did some months ago. I'm not sure they admire her tenacity as much as they enjoy seeing Democratic nominees bloody themselves up ahead of the November election...which has obviously helped Senator McCain to a degree.

Although I do agree that the Reverend Wright fiasco will certainly give them energy come the fall for sure. In my opinion, it has probably been a god send that the Wright issue came up during this primary and not during the general..that has been an advantage for him during this long Primary fight.

____________________

Nickberry:

Excellent observations... Ciccina.

I will add that the Obama campaign has a new spokesWOMAN (Linda Douglass). Yep, that is what she and Obama call HER.

Yes, I also was waiting on Obama to truly address women's issues... yet he instead mocked Hillary in a way that mocked all women. For example, women who have learned to use guns and have hunted are in his mind all considered to be "Annie Oakley" ... and not in a complimentary way.

By the way... Obama on EQUAL PAY DAY promised that he would make sure that women got paid equally when they did MEN's jobs. That he used that stereotypical term to categorize jobs by gender tells women a lot... aka Obama doe not have a clue.

____________________

Connor:

Ciccina,

Could you please explain why you think other "feminists" would vote for John McCain, a dedicated, pro-life candidate, over Barack Obama? Particularly when Obama is about to win this fair and square?

I find it hard to believe that a large portion of feminists would sell-out all of their ideals and beliefs for nothing more than spite.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

Ciccina & other feminists-

READ MY NAME!!!

What a joke. Hmmmm, I'm a bitter feminist, so I'll vote for a guy whose positions are the exact opposite of my candidate's. Makes a lot of sense there. Also, I will love to give up my reproductive rights when McCain appoints a bunch of whack job right wingers to the court!! Yeah! Go Women! Hear us ROAAR!!

Funny, & ironic, by doing just that, feminists set the "women's movement" back 50 years, to a time when they were thought to be mentally inferior. Now, they help prove those misogynistic theories.


Nickberry - Seek help bud. Poor Clintonistas, couldn't win elections so now it's about "selections". Here's a NEWSFLASH - POLLS MEAN NOTHING!!! If they did, we wouldn't have elections, we would just poll people and save ourselves millions of dollars!! Ohhhh, the good ole days from a year ago, when Hillary was ahead by 20 points everywhere - why oh why can't we go back to those wonderful times??? Why did we need to have actual elections??

By the way, your pathetic argument about "ergo equity" is just that, pathetic. Anyone with half a brain knows that Obama's being pummeled by McCain and the Republicans while having to fend of pseudo-Republican Hillary at the same time. When was the last time Hillary was in a GOP ad or McCain criticized her at length??? That's what I thought - another bogus argument from Nickberry. Doesn't it embarass you when all your arguments get continually shot down? To quote a line from Anchorman, "Maybe you should stop talking for awhile there, champ."

At the same time, Obama has had to limit his attacks - can't be seen as the "big, mean, black guy" in the race. While Hitlery unleashes lie after lie - now culminating in bogus, pathetic arguments about Florida and Michigan.

Ciccina and Nickberry and Adam_IL -

How does it feel supporting the racists' choice this year? Now, THAT, is something to be proud of!!!


____________________

Nickberry:

First... Yes.. frontrunners get attacked. Hillary had her turn as frontrunner (as well as her 8 years in the White House). So the present situation is that Obama and McCain have already started the General Election battle and are ignoring Hillary... and Hillary quit attacking Obama some time ago. She barely if ever mentions him. So, I still stand by that equity is in play.

Second... Wright will not go away. The GOP have already preparing for that issue... as well as Wright has a book coming out this fall just in time for the General Election.

____________________

Nickberry:

FYI... hopeyoulikecoathangers:

Your comment has been reported as OFFENSIVE, NOT INTELLIGENT, and NOT CIVIL.

____________________

marctx:

Its a win win to cross over and vote for McCain instead of Obama because McCain will block any of Obama's extreme liberal agenda but have no power to push a Bush like agenda. The dems will control the house and senate.

____________________

Connor:

The only thing "offensive" about coathangers is his user name (and even then, I'd argue that his "shocking" screen name serves an important purpose).

Besides, read his post: those are all valid points.

____________________

Nickberry:

Good point... marctx. A Democratic Congress with a President McCain ....who is committed to working with Congress in a bipartisanship way and has the record to back it up.... looks very attractive to voters who want a centrist (not leftist) government.

Interestingly, McCain has a long fairly positive environmental record as well as points for Indian Self-Determination, anti-torture, fiscal conservatism, ethics, campaign finance reform, and more. A record of real experience... a known quantity... whereas Obama has barely attended the Senate in his FIRST term as U.S. Senator. As a freshman Senator, Obama has the most missed votes except for Tim Johnson (S.D.) who had brain surgery.

____________________

Nickberry:

So... Connor... if I implied you were a "racist" and "bitter feminist" because of your voting choice... or called out directly that your opinions were "pathetic" and you had "half a brain" as well as telling you to "get help"... That you would be OK with that?

Additionally, the OFFENSIVE post had no cognizant argument among its vitriol. Take away the insults toward the Hillary and McCain and other posters... and it is EMPTY.

____________________

killias2:

"Its a win win to cross over and vote for McCain instead of Obama because McCain will block any of Obama's extreme liberal agenda but have no power to push a Bush like agenda. The dems will control the house and senate."

You Clinton supporters amaze me every day. Clinton's policy proposals are MORE EXPENSIVE than Obama's! I still can't believe how many of you would cut off your nose to spite your face.

January - "I like Clinton because her healthcare plan is better. Obama's is not really universal healthcare."
May - "Obama is too liberal for me!"

January - "I like Clinton because of what this means for women and women's rights!"
May - "Screw reproductive rights. We don't really need those!"

January - "We're going to change this country! Whooo first female president!"
May - "We don't need change. I want the old white guy, so he'll keep the Democrats from changing anything."

On issue after issue the difference between Clinton and Obama is tiny while the CHASM between the two and McCain is monstrously large. Do you care about the Iraq War? Do you care about our exponentially growing deficit? Do you care about rising gas prices? Do you care about the environment? Did you really care about universal healthcare, or was that a sham? Do you care about the Supreme Court, reproductive rights, and other social issues that could easily go conservative under a McCain presidency? Do you care about a possible war with Iran?

Or are you so obsessed with one tiny character in this whole political epic that you would throw away all of your political issues in frustration? Would you doom your kids to a country perpetually at war, without reproductive rights, without healthcare, with growing environmental problems, with growing energy concerns, and with an increasingly blurry line between what is legal and what is illegal?

When your kid dies in Iran or due to lack of healthcare or due to environmental concerns, I don't want to hear a complaint from any of you. I don't want to hear "but but the leadership is terrible." I don't want to hear anything about social justice or fairness. You will drop this ball. When your descendants look at you and ask "Mommy, why is our country in such terrible shape?" You will have to own up.

You voted for a war-mongering, flip-flopping, social conservative out of spite.

____________________

Ciccina:

I have to say that Mr. Coathangers has demonstrated precisely why I won't vote for Obama. There is simply no point in being part of a "movement" or campaign that has room for people like that.

Now I know that campaigns can't screen out their undesirable supporters, but with the Obama campaign these voices have been legion. Clearly they have found a home with Obama and the campaign has done nothing to dissuade them.

This isn't about sour grapes. Its about saying that not condoning sexism and misogyny should be a core Democratic value. An inviolate value. Just as the party would not tolerate a Democratic campaign that fostered a bunch of racist enthusiasts, they should have spoken out early, forcefully and repeatedly about the rhetoric used against Senator Clinton. They didn't. Obama's people (as well as Howard Dean's) quite obviously doesn't care whether women are treated equally or not. They quite clearly don't care whether women are publicly ridiculed and abused because of their gender. Evidently, its all fine with them.

To put this in racial terms, because those seem to be the only terms people want to understand, you don't expect an African American voter to vote for a candidate who would foster racism in order to win just because he's a Democrat. Likewise.

So thanks go to Mr. Coathangers for providing the case in point. Obama's campaign missed their chance to deal with people like him, and now, for people like myself, that chance is gone.

Connor, you didn't get my point. Women like myself are not going to vote for McCain. We're simply either not going to vote, vote third party or vote a write-in, depending on how organized we get.

The swing-voting suburban white women - they will vote for McCain, and it won't be a stretch for them because, duh, they are swing voters. Sure they care about the Supreme Court but they care about a lot of other issues too, and not putting some big-eared kid who keeps mooning on about "change" in charge of the economy and the military is one of them. These women have responsibilities. People depend on them. They have little to no margin for fooling around with pie-in-the-sky Up With People type nonsense. They want a president who will be responsible. Yes, they'll have misgivings about voting for a man who predates the cotton ginny, but for many of these voters that will be the lesser of two big leaps of faith.

____________________

Uri:

I am not so sure that HRC supporters would support Obama in PA and possibly in OH.

This is not limited to Hillary's "Old Women". From the local press it appears that there's a certain sense among some blue collar workers that Obama doesn't have a real blue-collar economic agenda or an actual healthcare plan. This was considered her "baby". The recent win in Oregon actually strengthened that "Latte for Obama" feel.

Many democrats in PA are conservative catholics. We had Santorum replaced by Casey who was considered as conservative as they go. Despite Casey's endorsement (meant to spite Ed Randell), Obama may be considered too liberal for some.

Add to that Nader on the ballot (he wasn't in it last time because the Dems prevented it), and a possible Libertarian candidate (who could get sway from blue collar workers here), and I am not sure at all Obama will win PA once things get going. The republicans have barely been campaigning here.

____________________

killias2:

Ciccina,

Basing a vote on what knuckleheads comments on the internet is hardly rational. Sure, there are sexist elements to Obama's support.. just as there are racist elements to Clinton's support. Guess what, there are racist and sexist elements among McCain's support too.

I want to hear real reasons why you won't support Obama. His policies aren't much different than Clinton's. Depending on how you define experience, he has a comparable amount. Sure, she has been in the Senate for longer, but he was involved in electoral politics for years before he joined the senate. And he was involved in law and international politics (from, respectively, an active standpoint in law and an academic standpoint in politics) before he was elected. Clinton's years in the White House, while important, just plain don't equate with being President or a member of Senate, so don't bring that out. She had a few big moments as First Lady, but, for the most part, she hung back and let the President be President. Basically, in the end, I can't see how the experience difference, it being so small, could cause such an intense reaction against Obama when their policies are virtually identical.

Obama's campaign has certainly not been sexist itself. I think NARAL would've been a little less likely to endorse Obama in the primary if anyone seriously thought Obama or his advisors were sexist. The fact that he is a male and Clinton is a female certainly exposes a gender hot-spot, the same way the fact that he is black and she is white exposes a racial hot-spot. Nonetheless, the vast, vast majority of African-Americans would still vote for Clinton. Do you think the vague elements of sexism among a small minority of Obama's movement is really worth abandoning Clinton's policies?

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

Nickberry-

For EVERY "issue" Obama has, Clinton has ten more. You think Wright is bad? What do you think the GOP will do to hillary? Hmm, whitewater, rose law firm, peter paul, norman hsu, etc, etc. Not to mention the two most toxic words: BILL CLINTON. That guy alone has enough issues to get the GOP fully united in the fall. The media has given her a free pass, in the interest of propping up this "contest". Anyone with a brain knows it has been over since February. But the MSM has decided that it was a "battle" these past few months. They prop up bogus Clinton talking points and report it as "news".

Hey, by the way, if someone walks over to you and punches you in the face because they don't like your, I dunno, hair color, is that YOUR problem or the problem of the guy who punched you??

So why does the MSM keep asking "What Obama's problem with working class white voters?" Why don't they just ask, "Why won't racists vote for Obama?"

By the way, it looks like he did just fine in Iowa, Minnesota, Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Wisconsin and Oregon with that group. Hmmm, I wonder why whites in appalachia won't vote for Obama? What could it possibly be???


You know what else is coming up in the fall nickleberry? Yup, the peter paul case. That WILL be a real story, not some psedo-smear by association tactic that has already FAILED!! Or did you miss the gop losing three house races already??

By the way, Hillary is still doing damage - trying to alienate Florida and Michigan voters when she knows they will be vital in the fall. WHY IS SHE THERE RIGHT NOW?? She doesn't have to mention Obama by name, she just makes up other random lies about "winning" the popular vote and how voters are being screwed, etc,etc, - the same old, poor me, I'm the victim line.

Instead of acting like a Democrat she has become a de facto Republican. She is wasting millions of her supporters' dollars and making Obama do the same. These are millions of dollars that could go to the general election campaign or to Congressional races. But does she care?? F$%@ no, she doesn't. She will say, or do anything to fulfill her ambition. That's all that matters.

By the way, I disagree with Obama's strategy of treating her with kid gloves these past few months - that's why he lost some of those states by such large margins. He should have exposed her for the lying, conniving rat that she is. Can you imagine what the GOP would have done with her Bosnia lie? It would have been on the TV 24-7 until November. What did Obama do? He gave her a free pass during the debate when it came up. He should have stepped on her throat and destroyed her way back in February. Maybe he would still have lost WV & KY, but it wouldn't have been by as much.

Obama felt that he needed her voters in the general and that he could not be seen as a brutal politician - no need to be seen as the "violent black man". Even though Hillary was doing all she could to be seen as the "poor white lady victim" - you know "the press is sexist, none of this is my fault, let FL & MI count even though I agreed before that they shouldn't". Now, she has done such a great job of this bs-ing that many reasonable supporters of hers have implicated Obama in the sexist attacks and would rather vote McCain. Explain to me how Obama was sexist again??

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

No point arguing with Ciccina - she is just a sore loser.

She likes to make up all these, "oh poor Hillary, she is being attacked because she is a woman" stories. No, she is being attacked because she is a liar with no scruples and poor judgement (psst, Iraq war vote). END OF STORY.

AGAIN, for the last time - show me a statement that Obama has made that proves he is a sexist or misogynist. And by the way, why does a "sexist" marry an outspoken, highly successful woman??

SOUR GRAPES, Ciccina. GET OVER IT.

Despite her shameful tactics, look at how many Obama voters would still vote for her over McCain. Now look at all the racists that support Clinton who wouldn't vote for Obama over McCain.

You think sexism is a problem in America, Ciccino? Obviously it doesn't compare to racism. People would rather vote opposite their interests than vote for a candidate of a different race. You can't say that to the same degree about gender. All the polls prove it.

____________________

Connor:

So Ciccina,

You're still supporting actions that, taken to their logical conclusions amongst the electorate, would seat John McCain...a pro-life, right-winger. By not voting for Obama or voting third party, "feminists" truly are selling out their ideals. This is sad and repellent and I can only hope it's just an illogical and reactionary response.

(This is akin to anyone who voted Nader in 2004.)

You still have provided no real reason on why you won't support Obama. He has not "stolen" the nomination. He won via that whole "voting" thing. That whole "rules" thing; rules that Clinton supported as did her advisors. Both Clinton and Ickes agreed on the decision to strip MI and Fla of their delegates.

____________________

Nickberry:

Ten Reasons (among many) why I do not support Obama:

1. HEALTHCARE. Obama 's healthcare plan is NOT universal healthcare.
2. FOREIGN POLICY. Obama has NO foreign policy experience, which is reflected in his stated positions, which are naive at best. (Obama in one poll was 40 points behind McCain.)
3. ECONOMICS. Obama's green economy plan was Hillary's green economy plan first. I vote for first.
4. ENERGY. Obama voted FOR the Bush/Cheney energy bill AGAINST the other Democrats. Hillary voted against it. Too much nuclear and ethanol in the "alternative energy" mix support of BIG OIL.
5. NUCLEAR WASTE. Obama stated he is for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. Obama admitted he knew NOTHING about the Hanford Cleanup.
6. GUN CONTROL. Obama is over the top gun control... He is even against concealed weapon permits for law-abiding citizens. (Criminals do not get concealed weapon permits.) He mocks all women who can shoot guns and have gone duck hunting. People like me... who at one time was a pretty good trapshooter. He also does not know that one uses a shotgun to hunt ducks (not a six-shooter). Obama is gun clueless.
7. NATIVE AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY. Talks about Native America, but has NO experience or track record. Both Hillary and McCain have specific positions to strengthen Native America and have the history to prove it.
8. WOMEN'S RIGHTS. Obama still thinks there are such things as "men's" jobs... and he promised to get women equal pay if we do a "man's" job. Clueless... sounds like my grandfather and not an enlightened new generation of new politics.
9. JESSE JACKSON. Dismissed Jesse Jackson (an endorser) and his 1984-1988 accomplishments. Keeps him hidden away. Apparently, Obama did not want to appear too black.
10. PHILADELPHIA. A city with 46% African American population did not even rate a visit from Obama to the 'hood. Could have at least sent Jesse Jackson in his place.

____________________

Connor:

"He mocks all women who can shoot guns and have gone duck hunting."

Because of what he said about Hillary?

This is a joke, right?

____________________

Nickberry:

The positive aspect of John McCain's "pro-life" viewpoint is that he is for state rights and against a Constitutional Amendment. If you want to discuss U.S. Supreme Court judges and potential nominations and confirmation (Senate advise and consent)... that is where the debate should be.

P.S. Pro-life Democrats exist. For example, Senator Bob Casey (PA) who endorsed Obama. And believe it or not there are pro-choice Republicans in great numbers.... like Senator Arlen Specter (PA). Reality is ironic... init?

____________________

Ciccina:

Kilias2, its not a matter of reacting to a few sexist/misogynistic posters such has our new friend here.

Rather, its a judgement based on:

- the Obama campaign's message strategy. the way he has pointedly avoided mentioning sexism as well as any classic women's issue. This has persisted despite circumstances which practically cry out for them to do this. He couldn't even do it when it would have been so easy - mentioning sexism when talking about discrimination; mentioning women's issues in his Women for Obama speech in SF (yes, I watched the whole thing). It is evident that he has at a minimum a Naderesque lack of respect for the feminist perspective, and quite likely some kind of hostility problem.

- the Obama campaign as well as the party's acceptance of sexism and misogyny as campaign tools, as modes of political discourse.

My position, in brief: it is not worth winning if you're going to win like that. You sacrifice too much. In this case, the end does not justify the means.

Look, I don't expect a lot of people to "get" this. If you don't share the same values, this isn't going to make sense to you.

As for the purported racism of the Clinton campaign itself, Ferraro has been proven right, at least if you take the New Atlantic's word for it. Today's Daily Howler provides the relevant text - John Judis describing how Hillary lost any traction with media elite when she failed to recognize that, because of his race, Obama was not just another candidate you could attack -

"Obama, too, was, and is, history -- the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different.... And if some voters didn't appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama's candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did-- and so did the members of the media and Obama's fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him."

So sayeth an Obama supporter. I don't expect Axelrod will be pointing the fickle finger of race at him any time soon.

Connor, the only thing I can say to you is that the choice issue matters on two levels - the practical, and the symbolic. Things are not going to improve under Obama. He's already gone on record saying he supports choice within the parameters set by the Supreme Court. That translates to: I'm okay with everything the Court has done with and to Roe. I am not going to stick my neck out one iota further. Consider also that surgical abortion is for practical purposes not available in some states, and that medical abortion is becoming increasingly common. Abortifacients are easily "smuggled." So throwing the legality question back to the states will not have the cataclysmic impact it would have ten years ago.

On the symbolic level, registering a protest with the party is a far more meaningful statement in support of equality, dignity, fairness etc. than caving in because have nowhere else to go. Night and day, really.

____________________

Nickberry:

Connor just does not get it... Sexist insults directed toward Hillary are the same as directed toward all women. (E.g. She has her "claws out.") Just as "real" racist comments made about Obama insult all blacks.

____________________

Ciccina:

I should add that I wholeheartedly agree with Nickberry's points #1, 2 and 9. I never thought I'd see the day when the progressive community would take a walk on universal health care. And to support bashing Paul Krugman because he dared to disagree - shameful. Per 2, well, that's obvious. Per 9, this isn't salient to me as a voter, but I did think it was shamefully rude of Obama to frame a comparison to Jesse Jackson as a denigrating comment. "Like Jesse Jackson" should not be considered a blanket perjorative among progressives. Of course, Jesse is in good company with Barack's grandma - and Paul Krugman, now that I think of it - under the wheels of the Obamabus.

____________________

Connor:

Nickberry,

If you think the duck hunting thing was "sexist," you really need

So Obama should respect every new persona/identity-based twist and turn HRC makes for political purposes? If she comes out tomorrow and says she's been a longtime BMX-motorcross enthusiast, we're supposed to take that seriously because...otherwise that's being a sexist?

"What, Connor?!? Hillary can't be a motorcross expert because she's a WOMAN!?! HUH?! You SEXIST!!!!"

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

Nickberry & Ciccina -

No, you're the ones who don't "get it".

Bogus arguments like "he has pointedly avoided mentioning sexism", don't fly. Read much? Take a gander at his web-site. Listen to his speeches. He always talks about the womens' movement. Even in his last speech in Iowa. YOUR EARS ARE CLOSED. You just believe what you want to. Your views aren't even based in reality.


By the way, has Hillary mentioned anything about how racists are propping up her campaign??? Hmmm, what was that?? I didn't hear you.

Just because your candidate was deficient and unworthy of being the Democratic nominee, it doesn't mean you need to make up a bunch of garbage like a top ten list of weak-ass claims that don't even make any sense. Lies from Clinton supporters.....why am I not surprised??

(Any list that has Jesse Jackson's role as a reason to not vote for Obama is just a JOKE, and calls into question the author's rationality.)

Nonsensical arguments, it seems, are a staple of Clinton supporters these days....

For example, Ciccina's blatant BS: "the Obama campaign as well as the party's acceptance of sexism and misogyny as campaign tools"

WHAT?!?! Name an instance. ONE. That's what I thought.

Saying Hillary is a LIAR is not sexism. It is the truth. Saying she will do or say anything is NOT sexism, it is also the truth, and she is proving it......daily.

I guess a whole lot of progressive women are sexists/misogynists too. I guess NARAL are a bunch of self-loathing sexists. I guess Susan Powers is a sexist for calling Hillary a monster.


Hillary lost because she ran a crappy campaign.....what makes you think she will run a better White House? Is Bill going to help her? Now, isn't that the height of hypocrisy.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

ciccina, you are hopelessly lost. How about giving the BS a rest?

Bill Clinton was denigrating Obama's south carolina win as inconsequential since even jesse jackson won it. As in, "you know those blacks, they stick together". Note how he didn't use the name of a white politician that won South Carolina. Basically he was saying, so what, blacks voted for him, it doesn't mean much.

A nice despicable pattern from camp clinton - caucus states don't matter, small states don't mater, black states don't matter, rich liberal states don't matter, only states hillary can win matter.

____________________

killias2:

I can't believe you have the nerve to say Obama has supported sexism with his campaign while Clinton has not utilized racism in hers. You guys must really live in some alternate dimension. If you can provide me with some solid proof that Obama has explicitly utilized sexism, do so. I'm not talking about a few random supporters or anything either. I mean his campaign. Things his people have control over.

The Jesse Jackson comment wasn't about Jesse Jackson. Clinton was denigrating Obama's campaign (and Jackson's) by implying that South Carolina always goes to the black candidates. While this is may or may not be arguable itself, consider where that logic leads. Consider the implications. Clinton was trying to suck the strength out of any Obama win where African Americans made up a part of the electorate. That is a good idea from a campaign standpoint, but a very bad idea given the history of African Americans and civil rights. Their history with votes not counting is long and tragic enough.

As for Universal Healthcare, I understand that Obama's plan doesn't have a mandate, but are you trying to say you'd rather have nothing than 90% of Hillary's plan? And as a sidenote, I saw someone attack Obama for "stealing" one of Hillary's ideas on green jobs. What about Hillary stealing her healthcare plan for Edwards? Would you not vote for her in the GE because she blatantly stole large elements of his plan? Or how about her stealing McCain's gas tax holiday? Would you vote for McCain because he was "first"?

In regards to foreign policy, are you really going to argue that Clinton has more real experience than Obama? Yeah, I guess she's been dodging sniper fire, saving Ireland, negotiating free borders in the Balkans, and freeing women in China for.. oh wait.. that was all BULL$@#T. And would you rather have McCain's "experience" (i.e. getting tortured in Vietnam, and then screaming for war in the middle east) than Obama?

Regarding Philadelphia, how is this even an issue? Also, he went to Philadelphia multiple times. What are you talking about?

Gun control, okay, I admit he's taken some controversial views on this. However, both candidates are advocates of gun control. In fact, while Obama supported the Vitter amendment ("to prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law"), Clinton was one of only 16 senators to vote against it.

Regarding energy, what's so wrong with nuclear power? Even the inventor of the Gaia thesis, James Lovelock, supports nuclear energy. He has said on this, "But what about nuclear waste? Will it not poison the whole biosphere and persist for millions of years? ' I knew this to be a nightmare fantasy wholly without substance in the real world... One of the striking things about places heavily contaminated by radioactive nuclides is the richness of their wildlife. This is true of the land around Chernobyl, the bomb test sites of the Pacific, and areas near the United States' Savannah River nuclear weapons plant of the Second World War. Wild plants and animals do not perceive radiation as dangerous, and any slight reduction it may cause in their lifespans is far less a hazard than is the presence of people and their pets... I find it sad, but all too human, that there are vast bureaucracies concerned about nuclear waste, huge organisations devoted to decommissioning power stations, but nothing comparable to deal with that truly malign waste, carbon dioxide."

His energy policy is based around finding new sources of energy WHEREVER and be more efficient with what we have. That's pretty level headed to me. France gets 80% of their power from nuclear energy. The people love it, and it is widely supported. I admit, I'd prefer wind, solar, wave, thermal, hydro, etc., but nuclear power is a good short-term (50-100 years) solution for our HUGE energy crisis.

I admit that I don't know much about the Native American issue, so I yield that one. However, I found this interesting tidbit, "Obama is the first presidential candidate to have been given honorary membership into a Native American tribe, the Crow Nation. At a private adoption ceremony, Obama was given the Crow name "One Who Helps People Throughout the Land."

I don't know. I still haven't seen enough of this supposed sexism (especially when contrasted to the oft-blatant appeals by Clinton to race) to see this as anything other than sour grapes.

____________________

Ciccina:

Coathangers, you are the gift that keeps on giving. To answer your questions, in brief: yes, yes but not in those terms, did I stutter?, the line of attack you're using now is a tidy example, her track record for one thing, and I don't know.

Sigh.

Its Samantha Power, by the way.

____________________

Connor:

Well-bowled, killias2.

Ciccina: good luck in selling out american women! Oh, and liberals! Good luck!

____________________

IHateChickenLittles:

Where to start. Nickberry you are a liar or ignorant. Take your pick.
"McCain has a long fairly positive environmental record"--League of Conservation Voters--0 rating this year (last in the senate) and 24, yes, 24 percent lifetime. Obama 96 percent lifetime. "anti-torture"--Voted against using the Army Field guide manual across the government. Maybe you could TRY to read up on him completely caving into to Bush and the right wing to allow torture in this regard. "ethics"--uhhhh, KEATING FIVE you clown (rebuked by Senate Ethics Committee) see also helping crap like this http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-15-mccainland_N.htm

"As a freshman Senator, Obama has the most missed votes"--McCain has missed 60% of the votes of the 110th Congress and Obama 41%. I mean seriously, do you know how to open your mouth without BS coming out.

As for Ciccina, I challenge you to name ONE instance of sexism coming from the Obama campaign. I could name you roughly ten racist instances coming directly from the Clinton campaign. If you are so delusional as to think that her gender hasn't been a huge net positive then I don't know what to say. I guess when she had a huge commanding lead in the polls early on it was because everyone didn't realize they were sexists until a few months ago. I guess right-wingers selling "nutcracker" dolls, holding up "iron my shirt" signs once, or Chris Matthews being an idiot PROVES she lost because Dean and Obama and all the other meanies are misogynists. No it couldn't possibly be because she ran a TERRIBLE triangulating campaign run by a bunch of idiots like Patti Doyle and Mark Penn because she valued loyalty over competence, like a certain boy king. No no, it's because everyone is a misogynist and they TOOK away what was rightfully hers.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

Wow, Ciccina, you got beat down again. Hmmm, looks like I'm not the only one calling BS on your pathetic "arguments".

By the way, as you know, a vote for Nader or staying at home is equivalent to letting McBush appoint pro-life whack-jobs to the court. So be sure to tell the next generation of women that you had a chance to preserve their reproductive rights.....but did nothing out of spite.


WAY TO GO!!!!!

____________________

boskop:

@ciccina
you speak for me. my biggest problem now apart from the 'callow' candidate the dnc insists on running, is that this is no longer a viable party.

i wont vote for a nominee of a party that doesn't represent all states. and i am certain that when mccain gets hold of this fact he can ram it down obama's throat.

there will be no feasible slick rebuttal, no arrogant disdain, no dismissive 'silly' commentary, and no empty rhetoric that makes you think you heard something substantive but you actually didn't.

like they used to say about chinese food: obama is like chinese food, he fills you up in the moment, an hour later you're starving.

i'll be heading to DC to annoy the DNC, make them do the right thing. i wish obama's people would join forces otherwise he's a bogus candidate desperate to win at any price, willing to cheat and hardly the politican who walks on water.

____________________

Ciccina:

Connor, the blame lies with Obama and the party for alienating people like me. Its their business to earn my support and represent my interests - or not. The day they decided Hillary and her supporters were the enemy is the day they made the biggest mistake of the campaign. Well, that and lying about Rezko, but that was really a series of days. Okay, also going after "mandates" but again that wasn't one single day. And continuing to support Wright knowing how bad he was and that there were visuals to prove it... okay, I guess there were a lot of big mistakes. I correct myself.

Coathangers, changing your pseudonym isn't enough; you have to change your writing style too. Seriously, dude.

____________________

killias2:

Boskop, how do you figure that Obama doesn't represent all the states? I mean, after all, he did win more states than Clinton did. Also, his support in general election polls is quite strong, given the currently divided party.

How exactly did Obama cheat again? Last I checked, he wasn't the one who agreed to the rules before the game, then argued that the rules should be changed in the final inning.

____________________

boskop:

48 states by next week. i thought there were more. so did he. he wrote checks for cable ads
heading into florida. but now it's an invisible vote. an invisible democratic electorate.

that's 48. no candidate worth their salt goes into a GE missing two. he has made the wrong choice. his true colors have come through.

he is a callow as any huckster trying to be elected dog catcher. he chose the low road not the high road. i can assure you that i am typical of an enormous swathe of people, not women, people who will gamble on mccain the liberal in republican clothing and hopefully his obama look alike vp choice - bobby jindal

____________________

IHateChickenLittles:

God you all are killing satire. "i wont vote for a nominee of a party that doesn't represent all states." You mean like Team Clinton's strategy of Any-State-That-Didn't-Vote-For-Clinton-Doesn't-Matter
(ASTDVFCDM). I could give you literally MOUNTAINS of quotes from everyone involved in her campaign dismissing and not campaigning in dozens of state. If you are referring to Obama not campaigning in Kentucky, a state where 21% of the people voting willingly told a complete stranger that they didn't vote for Obama because he was black... well I guess McCain will really hammer him on that. "i wish obama's people would join forces otherwise he's a bogus candidate desperate to win at any price, willing to cheat" HAHHAHHAAHAHAHAH. The irony, it buurrrnnss.

____________________

And Kilias2 =

there is no way I can explain these issues to you in this context. But I'll take a brief stab at one - your dismissal of Hillary's statement in Beijing at the UN Int'l Conference on Population and Development.

The agreement hammered out there has been one of the key blueprints for international development ever since. It is the reason why gender equality is one of the eight UN Millennium Development Goals, on par with eradicating poverty and hunger. It is the reason why the World Bank and other institutions have placed gender equality at the top of their agenda. From a legal standpoint, international consensus that women's rights are human rights has literally changed the world. The U.S. contribution to the ICPD agreement - at Hillary's iniative - substantially changed the lives of millions of people.

But that's just another example of "tea in an exotic locale" according to Obama. And his supporters, so convinced that a first lady couldn't possibly do anything significant (despite the example of who was it oh yes Eleanor Roosevelt) never bothered to check it out. No, they're sure she's just a golddigger who would be nothing without her man to cling to. Its just so easy to believe, isn't it? Because "wives" are just satellites of their husbands, right? And besides, its just women's issues, it couldn't possibly count as important in terms of the big picture... why, I remember Obama supporters in this very space claiming Hillary had done "nothing" in her career.

If you think Beijing is nothing, you've made your position on gender equality quite clear. And lets not argue that Obama doesn't "really" think that, its just a campaign tactic. BS.

And that's just one example.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

Ohhh, Ciccina, I guess we are all sexists then, eh? We are all misogynists, even all the women who support Obama.

Get a clue. Perhaps you should go look up the word sexist. Accurately describing a woman's behavior doesn't make them a sexist.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

Way to go boskop & ciccina!

Why not write in Bush? That's the ticket! WAAAAAA! My candidate didn't win, so I'm going to take my ball and go home. GOOD. Go Home.


By the way, that whole stupid 48 nonsense is complete BS and you two clowns know it. Clinton is on tape saying they shouldn't count. In fact, she didn't say a peep until it was politically convenient for her. Now, she is a champion of th people whose votes should be counted. Please. This is why people HATE her. She is a lying, piece of garbage who will say anything to get elected. She sounds more like a Republican every day.


Sorry losers, but RULES ARE RULES! You don't change them after you lose. You want someone to be mad at? Go call Governor Crist or Granholm. Don't blame Obama because he played by the rules that Hillary also agreed to.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

Ciccian -

I thought lofty words don't mean anything......


What's good for the goose.....

____________________

Connor:

Uh, the Democratic party, the party HRC is a member of, made the rules.

MI and FL broke the rules.

The DNC made their call (Ickes voted for it).

All the candidates consented.

The campaign started. And Obama won the most delegates, the agreed upon metric for who gets the nomination.

No one is being "disenfranchised." (McGovern, who helped design the modern primary system, has said it was never intended to be a mini-presidential election.)

I'm kind of embarrassed for fake-liberals like Ciccina. You'll sell out your ideals because...your candidate lost fair and square? That's horribly pathetic and horribly narcissistic. I can't stand HRC but had she won, I would have no problem casting my vote for her. Why? Because there're bigger things at stake other than "which candidate is my dreaaaaaaaam candidate."

Grow up.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

boskop-

More bs from a clinton hack - why does this not surprise me?? He wrote checks for NATIONAL cable ads!! BIG DIFFERENCE, BSer.

When will you clowns stop lying????

Those national ads played on some cable stations that some Floridians may have watched. What, was he supposed to not advertise nationally on cable? Please!

And I'm sure that the small fraction of people who saw the ads were moved immediately to vote for him. Get a clue. Didn't Clinton actually go to Floria for fund-raisers? Hmmm, no breaking the rules there!!!!

What a bunch of garbage & hypocrisy.

Florida would have been split or Obama may have even won it if he had campaigned there.

The delegates will be split 50/50 on 5/31. And that will be the end of that.....and of the despicable fiasco known as Hillary Clinton. And thank-efffing-God!!!


____________________

Connor:

Arguing with a Clintonista is, surprisingly, a lot like arguing with a Bush-supporter. You just sit there, drop your jaw and think "My God, can they hear themselves?"

Maybe y'all should just vote for McCain. Sounds more like your kind of "scene."

____________________

killias2:

Ciccina,

I'm starting to wonder if you're a feminist or a GOP member just trying to stir up trouble. Anyone who confuses the statements about the First Lady position with statements about women in general is either ridiculous or being dishonest.

First Women can certainly accomplish things in their terms, but to act like it's a training position for the Presidency is a joke. All I'm saying is that to act like her time as First Lady was vastly more experiential than Obama's time as a State Senator (who was directly involved in legislation, electoral politics, campaigning, etc.) is just silly. I'm arguing that they are COMPARABLE. She got to see some things that no Representative, Governor, or State politician would ever see, but, at the same time, she wasn't exposed to the direct line of politics as much as people in those positions are. Basically, Obama and Clinton both have experience, but they have different kinds of experience. Reading sexism into this standpoint, as I said, seems rather facetious.

As for her speech, as a Clinton supporter, I'm surprised you care for the power of speeches. I was under the impression that actions, not rhetoric were what mattered. Her words didn't change a thing in China. In fact, they were blacklisted in China. What did Clinton do? He gave China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status. Either Hillary wasn't involved in this (where's the experience?), or it was the kind of empty rhetoric that she supposedly avoids.

____________________

boskop:

bloviate schmoviate.

i dont even care what hillary wants anymore. i want the principle of democracy respected.

i cannot vote for a party of high concept that gets bogged down in the play book. that's why we have amendments to the constitution, and a court of judges to constantly argue the elastic clauses.

democracy is a dynamic principle. rigid rules cant trump the principle. nazi's, tryrants, kings, dictators. they make rules that can't be broken.

and if hillary were to win with just 48, i'd be just as disillusioned by her standards.

it is the concept that i address not a person. THE CONCEPT you broken record.

so name call all you need to do, that is the only card you have left to play. obama will not win this as it stands. mccain has got his ammo and will use it. i hope he does. he better.

____________________

Connor:

"democracy is a dynamic principle. rigid rules cant trump the principle. nazi's, tryrants, kings, dictators. they make rules that can't be broken."

...


HAHAHAHAHA!

Oh man!

____________________

boskop:

quite a comeback, that one. i am so impressed with obama people as i am certain the rest of the world is.

all you do is put your hands together and sing
'chang - a comin'"

is that new? i think even my school principal says the same thing.

but go on and YELL LOUDER AND LOUDER. you only get one vote, and not even that in this party.

this is yout typical hot air balloon that you people float becasue you dont care to THINK.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

wow boskop - more garbage, less facts.

FACT:

Clinton agreed to the rules put forth by the DNC before the primary season.


FACT:

Now, she wants to change them. She didn't utter a peep before she "won" the bogus elections in florida and michigan.

Why have rules then, dummy?? Why not let all the states hold primaries willy-nilly??

In fact, Alaska can hold it's primary for 2012 right now. How about that? Sounds good to you, I'm sure.......get some sense.

____________________

Tybo:

"FACT:

Clinton agreed to the rules put forth by the DNC before the primary season"

FACT:
Obama pledged to seat the delegates.

LMAO

____________________

Connor:

"i think even my school principal says the same thing."

This statement explains so, so much about you.

"your hands together and sing
'chang - a comin'"

Awesome! I've been telling people we need a PF Chang's in our neighborhood for YEARS.

____________________

Ciccina:

kilias2, you didn't read a word I wrote about the China speech, did you? It wasn't about Chinese women - it was about all women (and girls). It was an international meeting that happened to be held in China. It had zero to do with trade status. The Chinese were pissed because she condemned China's one-child policy w/ forced abortions. But that was a small part of the big picture. And - far from being "just words" the speech articulated a policy position backed up by committments and actions. Big time commitments and action.

Look, Obama's people can argue till they are blue in the face that he should be the nominee. In some ways the argument is valid. In other ways its not. But the way the discussion has been handled tells you a lot. Hillary argues about the relative weighting of individual votes, delegates and various other factors. Only Obama argues that it is appropriate - at this stage, given these circumstances, not some hypothetical situation - to completely invalidate the opinions of hundreds of thousands of people. Only Obama argues that certain people's opinions shouldn't matter.

Kind of reminds you of his first election victory, doesn't it? The one where he had all the other Dems thrown off the ballot for registration irregularities after the filing deadline closed? Remember he also won his Senate seat in a cockeyed way - his main Dem primary opponent imploded, and then the GOP general candidate imploded. Hmmm.

Look, it boils down to this: at a certain point Obama and his campaign decided for strategic purposes that Hillary and her supporters were to be treated as if they were corrupt, stupid, racist and worthy of contempt, an attitude they've stuck with regardless of the point under discussion.

They actively cultivated this "us versus them" mentality in a way that the other democratic campaigns did not. Of course, they had to because they had no real issue differences, experience or accomplishments to run on. So it had to be about how eeeeevil Hillary is, and of course only eeeeevil or stupid people would support an obviously eeeeevil candidate.

Well, guess what? You got your "us" and now you've got your "them." You may win the battle but you've lost the war.

____________________

Nickberry:

In partial response to IHateChickenLittles....

READ CAREFULLY... I specifically said FRESHMAN SENATOR... meaning that Obama has seldom been present EVER. Obama does not have decades of Congressional experience and knowledge upon which to rely upon. Obama is basically an intern... an apprentice in the Senate.

Your namecalling is unwarranted and uncivil.

____________________

killias2:

Ciccina, now you're arguing the Michigan/Florida thing as well? Man, you guys are getting desperate.

I'd have a post showing, point by point, why it's so ridiculous, but pollster.com keeps sending it to a spam filter because it has too many hyperlinks. Without the hyperlinks, I can't properly cite my sources, and I figure an argument without citations is like a shower without soap. Still, I'll do my best.

To boil it down:
1)She agreed to the rules before hand.
2)She said it didn't matter that her name was on the ballot in Michigan because it wouldn't count for anything.
3)In exit polls done on the day in Michigan, fully 35% said they would've voted for Obama. Only 46% said they would've voted for Clinton. 12% said Edwards. Keep in mind many Democrats (especially Edwards and Obama supporters) stayed home just because their candidate wasn't on the ballot.
4)Michigan Democrats came up with a compromise that mirrored these realities. Clinton would've taken 69 delegates, and Obama 59 delegates. Clinton killed the compromise. Apparently, she doesn't -really- care about having Michigan seated.
5)In polls taken in March, the two were virtually tied in Michigan.
6)The Michigan re-vote was killed because of questions over who could vote in it. Michigan doesn't have official party registration, and, since Michigan didn't count in the Democratic contest, many Democrat-leaners voted in the Republican contest. Would these people (many of them life-long Democrats) have been able to vote in a re-vote? Would life-long Republicans who did not vote in the GOP primary be able to vote in it? Nobody could find a way to conduct the race, so it was effectively axed. The funding question was also a major concern.
7)Clinton's finance chair McAuliffe, when he was DNC Chair, threatened Michigan with the exact same punishment later given out by Dean.
As he told Senator Levin, "Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

Clinton doesn't care about the voices of Democrats in Florida and Michigan. She cares about the delegates that had her name next to them. If she cared, she would've said something, oh, I don't know, before the contests. Instead, she didn't utter a peep about seating them until weeks later, when it was clear she was looking at a frightful calendar. If she cared, she would've taken the compromises offered by the MICHIGAN DEMOCRATS seriously. If her staff cared, they wouldn't have made the exact same threats 4 years ago.

In the end, I'd like to see some delegates from Michigan and Florida seated, but to act like both were legitimate contests when they were discounted by the party officially, and when there was low turnout, no campaigning, no organization, no get out the vote efforts, and when Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan is just ridiculous.

And as for your comments about Clinton, it was a good speech, but I still don't see how it translates to being much more than that. The whole conference was devoted to issues of this nature. I doubt there was anyone in the room who was like "Women? Have rights? Wow, I never really thought about that before." I mean, after all, this was the "Fourth World Conference on Women." Also, that speech doesn't mean she has foreign policy credentials. There wasn't any crisis management. She wasn't in control of long-term policy. She wasn't substantially altering any short-term policies herself. It's important that people say the kinds of things she said, but that doesn't necessarily translate to experience. It means she's a great speaker, and I didn't mean that as an insult as Clinton fanatics seem to use it these days.

____________________

killias2:

Oh, as a response to your demographic argument Ciccina, I have a few comments:

1)Obama wasn't the first to make this about demographics. Regardless of how you interpret Clinton's comments about Jesse Jackson, you've got to admit he was at least hinting at the demographics. Otherwise, why only mention Jackson? Lots of nominees have won South Carolina besides Jesse Jackson. What could him and Obama possibly have in common?

If anything, it works against Obama to make this about demographics, and he knows it. That's why he was so quick to jump on it. He didn't want this to be about Clinton being racist. He wanted to attack the demographic narrative before it got out of hand. Unfortunately, the Obama camp's replies only made the demographic narrative more powerful.

2)To act like Obama has tried to demonize Clinton supporters is ridiculous. I don't remember Obama implying that "hard-working" folks only supported him. I don't remember Obama implying that she was only successful because she was a female (*cough*Ferraro*cough*). In fact I don't remember Obama's camp really going on the attack that much, besides the Clinton-Jackson comment and the Ferraro comment.

3)When two candidates are this similar in terms of policy, but this different in terms of identity, of course there is going to be a demographic breakdown of some sort. At the end of the day, some people will identify more strongly with people of their own race or gender. Or some people may appreciate the meaning of having a president of a non-traditional (in terms of the presidency) race or gender. If the policy gap is not large enough to create cleavages on its own, electoral politics demands that new cleavages will form. Demographic differences tend to be one of the most likely splits beyond policy differences. Heck, the United States is unusual in that demographics don't have more of an impact on politics. In a country like Belgium, for example, there are Dutch and French speaking parties for every set of policies.

At the least, don't try to act holier than thou on the demographic split. Clinton is -at least- as guilty of pushing demographic politics as Obama.

____________________

RLF:

Is this the way Obama supporters expect to pick up Hillary's supporters, by badgering them???
Those tactics will work in a caucus where the vote is public but in a regular election it gives you a double digit loss.
I think Obama's supporters do not realize the animosity they have created among a sizable portion of Hillary supporters, and the divisions they have created are not the kind that will heal over by election time.
I now believe it's too late to mend the fences in time. I see no viable way Obama can win.
Congratulations, you have won the primaries and in so doing, with such disregard, you have squandered your chances for victory.

____________________

RLF:

Is this the way Obama supporters expect to pick up Hillary's supporters, by badgering them???
Those tactics will work in a caucus where the vote is public but in a regular election it gives you a double digit loss.
I think Obama's supporters do not realize the animosity they have created among a sizable portion of Hillary supporters, and the divisions they have created are not the kind that will heal over by election time.
I now believe it's too late to mend the fences in time. I see no viable way Obama can win.
Congratulations, you have won the primaries and in so doing, with such disregard, you have squandered your chances for victory.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

no point killias, no point.

This ciccina clown is so delusional she may need professional help. It is like she is living in some alternate fantasy land where everyone who doesn't support Hillary is a sexist. She still can't come up with ONE example of sexism by the Obama camp.

The whole "us vs them" bs line is a complete joke.

Wow, she is utterly bonkers. Makes you wonder what sort meds she is on or perhaps she is mixing meds? I can't fathom how one person is THAT insane, can you? Yikes, I'd hate to know her....she'd probably call me a sexist if I looked at her the wrong way.

By the way ciccina, we don't have to ARGUE anything. Obama is the nominee. All Clinton supporters have now is sour grapes. So do what you crazies will, vote Nader, vote McBush, spread more lies....who cares.

The Obama movement will just leave you behind.....feel free to wallow in what could have been....if your candidate wasn't such an inept, crazy, power-hungry sociopath.

Something to ponder though.....how is a lady who forgives a serial adulterer and stays with him for political gain such an amazing role model for women again??


____________________

Mark Blumenthal:

Wow.

Great day I pick to try to get some work done on the "pipes" of this site. Then I go out to dinner with my family, including my a 3 and 5-year-old children, and when I get home, I discover the 10,000-word verbal foot fight above that makes my kids usual antics seem mature by comparison.

Yes, we have a comments policy here, but it boils down to a simple idea: Political partisanship is inevitable in these discussions, but crude personal insults directed at other commenters will get you banned.

The comments of "hopeyoulikecoathangers" obviously crossed that line and I have banned him.

However many of the rest of you -- and here I'm directing my comments to Ciccina, Nickberry, killas2, conner, boskop -- have not been much better. You seem to feel compelled to bait each other with repetitive rants and issue blanket condemnations of the followers of the candidate you oppose.

Let me try to put this into some context: So far today, this site has had over 56,000 unique visits, but only 725 of those were views of this page. And the average time spent reading this entry was just over 2 1/2 minutes, a statistic suggesting that very few of those 725 bothered to read any of the thousands of words of vitriol posted in the bottom two-thirds of this page. When I have to devote precious time to moderating these comments and refereeing the endless rounds of snark, something is wrong.

So rather than try to sort out who said what about whom, here's my edict: Ciccina, Nickberry, killias2, conner, and boskop, consider yourselves in a virtual "time out" for the next four days. Take the weekend off. Go outside. Take long walks. Smell the flowers. Do whatever you please, for all I care, just refrain from posting here until Tuesday.

And if you can't leave well enough alone and choose to post again between now and Tuesday, I'll ban you permanently.

Clear?

____________________

Ciccina:

kilias2, Bill Clinton said, basically, that one shouldn't read too much into the Obama win in South Carolina because there are a large number of black voters there, and they overwhelmingly support Obama; he noted that Jesse Jackson, also a candidate who did exceptionally well with African-American voters, did well there, and it didn't mean he went on to win the nomination.

This is no different than saying, for example, don't read too much into New Hampshire, because the New Hampshire winner doesn't always get the nomination. Or don't read too much into Hillary's win in such-and-such county in Florida - there are a large percentage of seniors. Demographics count. Wins in one area don't necessarily translate to another area. For pete's sake, we say it here every day.

There is absolutely nothing racist about this observation. The only reason you say it is racist is because Obama told you so. That is really shameful.

Ferraro's comment is also not racist. Obama has utilized his race(s) as a positive signifier of his difference from the typical Dem candidate. It is a key part of his "change" message. People say this all the time. All the time. What a change it will be - what a positive change it will be - to have our first black president.

It is simply a fact that Obama has made his mixed-race heritage a positive in terms of his candidacy. If he were just another white guy running against the first serious female nominee, the "change" message would be a much tougher sell. What change would he represent, then? What would make him so different from, say, John Edwards? Or Biden? Or Dodd? He'd be another version of them, but with better speaking skills and less experience.

Furthermore, Ferraro made her position perfectly clear when she said that she viewed being the female VP candidate the same way. She said that in her case, in that circumstance (being picked to be the VP candidate) being female was an asset. She 'would not have been picked if her name was Gerald,' remember?

This should have absolutely clarified that one (1) she was not saying that there is no such thing as sexism / racism; (2) she was not saying that there wouldn't be resistance to a female / mixed race nominee. Obama's people purposely misinterpreted and misrepresented what she said for strategic advantage.

What you don't seem to get is this - so what if Obama uses his identity as a positive signifier? Its who he is. Pointing that out is not putting him down. Its not saying that he's wrong, or that he's less than. It simply is. It is a fact that part of his appeal is his identity. It is not an insult.

Honestly, I don't know how much clearer this could be.

As for the other items on the Clinton-is-racist hit parade - statements made by Clinton campaign supporters and/or surrogates - well, having just gone through the whole don't-blame-Obama-for-what-his-reverend-said thing, I should think that those complaints are off the table.

The racism accusations are among the most despicable tactics Obama has rolled out. Jesus, I just remembered how they purposely misrepresented Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment.

Really, there is no possible defense for what he did. Utterly despicable.

____________________

Ciccina:

Okay, Mark. Message received.

____________________

cinnamonape:

Actually these polls by Quinnipac seem to me to show that Obama is actually moving on McCain.


Quinnipiac 5/13-20/08 1419 RV 45 41 2 8 4
Quinnipiac 4/23-29/08 1411 RV 44 43 1 8 4
Quinnipiac 3/24-31/08 1136 RV 46 37 3 9 6
[Obama's gained between +8 and +5 in the latest two Quinnipac surveys]

Rasmussen 5/19/08 500 LV 50 40 6 3 -
Rasmussen 4/10/08 500 LV 53 38 7 3 -

[In Rasmussen he's gained +5 against McCain]

I'm sure that he can live with those figures for the time being, especially since they show no effect of campaigning in the State, as yet.

____________________

cinnamonape:

Similarly the Ohio polls show a generally close race; Quinnipac suggests it's been a statistical tie for most of this year.
McCain vs. Obama (other/unsure/neither-won't vote)

Quinnipiac 5/13-20/08 1244 RV 44 40 2 9 5
Quinnipiac 4/23-29/08 1127 RV 43 42 2 8 5
Quinnipiac 3/24-31/08 1238 RV 42 43 2 8 5
Quinnipiac 2/6-12/08 1748 RV 42 40 3 10 5
Quinnipiac 10/1-8/07 946 RV 39 43 3 10 4
Quinnipiac8/28-9/3/07 1430 RV 42 41 3 10 5
Quinnipiac 7/3-9/07 1447 RV 38 43 3 11 5
Quinnipiac 6/18-25/07 1013 RV 38 43 3 11 5
Quinnipiac 5/8-13/07 939 RV 41 44 1 11 3
Quinnipiac 4/17-24/07 1083 RV 42 36 2 16 4
Quinnipiac 3/13-19/07 1122 RV 37 45 2 13 3
Quinnipiac2/25-3/4/07 1281 RV 39 42 2 15 3
Quinnipiac 1/23-28/07 1305 RV 41 38 1 18 3

Rassmussen has suggested a lot of volatility, although Obama has apparently shaken off some of the Wright scandal issues there...or it could be random fluctuations- they started out statistically tied, McCain took a lead in March that flipped by the end of the Month, then it flipped again...now it's tied.

Rasmussen 5/15/08 500 LV 45 44 5 5 -
Rasmussen 4/8/08 500 LV 47 40 7 7 -
Rasmussen 3/26/08 500 LV 42 48 7 3 -
Rasmussen 3/13/08 500 LV 46 40 9 5 -
Rasmussen 2/17/08 500 LV 42 41 9 8 -

SUSA shows a similar pattern. McCain strongly led in the pre-Primary surveys by between 9-15% difference. That dimished starting in January to where Obama led by as much as 7-10. Now's it's back to a statistical tie.

SurveyUSA 4/11-13/08 527 RV 47 45 8 - -
SurveyUSA 3/14-16/08 532 RV 50 43 - 7 -
SurveyUSA 2/26-28/08 632 RV 40 50 - 10 -
SurveyUSA 2/15-17/08 542 RV 44 47 - 8 -
SurveyUSA 1/4-6/08 535 RV 50 43 - 7 -
SurveyUSA12/13-15/07 539 RV 47 38 - 15 -
SurveyUSA 12/3/07 643 RV 51 40 - 9 -
SurveyUSA 11/9-11/07 533 RV 52 37 - 11 -
SurveyUSA 3/12/07 RV 50 39 - 11 -
SurveyUSA 2/12/07 RV 51 41 - 8 -
SurveyUSA 1/15/07 RV 54 40 6 - -

____________________



The comments to this entry are closed.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR