I'm a political scientist. I've called everything from Kerry's suspect electability to Yeltsin's rise following the Politburo's fall...a year before it happened. I predicted the victories of Webb and Tester more recently. Yeah, I come on here and dish out shit, but I know what I'm talking about.

I'm almost never wrong. And I'm not wrong now.

The dynamics of this campaign are simple, people. Obama is a far, far better candidate against McCain. John Edwards was the best, but he's gone. Hillary will not beat John McCain. She'll increase GOP turnout, send independents to the GOP, and suppress Democratic turnout. She'll be toxic downticket.

The media will dissect her every cackle as they fellate McCain with Hooverish vigor. Hillary has higher negative ratings than any potential nominee in history. They will not decrease.

This is fucking simple, people. Nominate Obama and win, or nominate Hillary and lose.

You've been warned by someone who knows this shit. Wake up.

The primaries aren't about the issues, "electability," or who is best suited to lead the country.

These primaries are about the media. The media has raged a fifteen year war on the Clintons. That war continues every day, and now Obama has been given the same free pass that Bush got in 2000, mainly because of his opponent's last name. That free ride will end as soon as he meets media-darling McCain. Now matter how attractive the Democratic candidate, the media always finds the Republican candidate even more attractive.

It is supremely disheartening to hear the supposed progressive left taking up the media's vendetta against Clinton, and using it in support of a less qualified, less progressive candidate.

The media will get what they want: President McCain. The Democrats could attempt to challenge the media to provide fair coverage of all Democrats, but that is simply above many of the Obama supporters. Obama is simply a tool to reach he media's preordained result.

McCain and Obama are both MSM darlings. Since Obama is a Republican in sheep’s clothing corporate America and will be happy if he becomes president Obama. The person the MSM hates the most is the person most deserving of my vote and that would be a true blue Democrat, Hillary.

Hey I got it, why don't we stop the rest of the primaries for both parties and just annoint Obama the presidency right now, saving us all some effort, time, and money because as RAM says it's inevitable based on his track record and expertise.

It's kind of like, hey just stfu submit now and you will like it.

RAM you may wanna work on that ummm approach of yours a bit,

And while I'm at it, how about telling me what the winning megabuck lottery ticket numbers are going to be in my state tonite since you seem to be able to predict the future with such accuracy.

emal, you might not care for RAM's approach, but his point is supported by the polls. When you start seeing polls showing Clinton's favorability high, when you start seeing her beating McOld instead of getting beaten in every poll, then you'll be the one making the predictions. Until then, it's put up or shut up time for Clinton. She just got her butt kicked in all the caucus' this weekend.

Eriposte, your postings are like those document dumps many here complain of from the administration, you know those late Friday dumps of massive amounts of info when people don't want to go thru them. I'm not making any comment about quality, just the amount, there's a lot to swallow, an enormous amount. Remember attention spans...

The point she makes is interesting, though: Whereas Hillary's record is BETTER than what's being shown in the media, Obama's is WORSE. A lot of his supporters will likely be upset when they realize that he has supported the war since joining the Senate, paralleling Hillary's voting record almost exactly. His 'present' votes will likely be a surprise to them, as would his corporate contributions, level of disclosure (inferior to Hillary's) and so on.

Hillary has nothing to lose going into the election; she is much more transparent than Obama and isn't likely to be had in any 'gotcha' media campaigns. Obama is ripe for the picking.

Not to say that Obama would be a bad candidate, but we really have to accept all his flaws with open eyes if he is going to be our man. We have to plan for these things.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2008/02/beware-of-the-s.html

Don't forget this article, either:

To me it's perfectly obvious that the right wing is licking their chops in anticipation at facing Obama. ... .. I think it would be childlike to believe that Karl Rove hasn't done his homework already.. They are drooling in anticipation.

I think Hillary Clinton will smoke McCain in the general elections. Look at Clinton's performance in New York where she was elected with the support of traditionally Republican Counties. Clinton has already proved that she can get the Independent and moderate Republican vote. More, she has effectively worked in Congress across the aisle to get legislation passed. Moderate Republicans like, and work well with Hillary! All this stuff about Clinton invigorating "hateful" Republicans is nonsense. Those hateful Republicans (comprised mostly of the extreme right which is already losing power) will spew venom at any Democratic candidate, including Obama. And, didn't Limbaugh and Coulter, two cheerleaders of this Republican invective, already say they would campaign for Clinton if McCain received the Republican nomination? Hardly the starting ground for going after Hillary. I don't think the invective directed at Clinton in the general elections will be greater than the Rich, Matthews, blogosphere nonsense directed at her now. And, Hillary Clinton has already proved herself to be a person capable of forging alliances across difference!

To summarize the advantages you list here for Clinton in the GE: 1) "I expect she will have far more of the progressive "netroots" and "elite" lined up behind her than she has today. Certainly true, but wouldn't the same be true of Obama if he's the candidate? I don't see this as an advantage over him. 2) "very little about her possible negatives is unknown", ie, ignore the fact that people don't like her, they will once they get to know her.

Edwards supporter, longtime non-voter, but I don't find either of these to be advantages over Obama.

*I will vote for Obama should he win the nomination and I will do all that I am able to help the Democratic nominee win the general election*

T2,

Where am I arguing that it doesn't look good for Hillary and the polling here. Stop making assumptions here that I don't have. And it certainly doesn't mean I can't support her if I think she's the best qualified for the job right now. But also Stop assuming I don't support Obama just because I support Hillary more.

I criticized some arrogant pompous anectodal commentary from some semianonymous poster who claims that s/he's a political scientist and uses the name RAM who's essentially telling everyone to submit, submit...Obama's the one and everything else is just an exercise in futility at this point based on a few previous predictions he's made. Jeebus. knock it off. I think that kind of approach is ridiculous, as history has proven a lot can happen between now and NOvember...nothing, nothing this far out can be predicted with the accuracy and in the definitve pompous attitude in which RAM makes it..that is what I'm warning you about.

Where am I arguing polls...and did you read any of the links and analysis eriposte put up here about polling and people buying into conventional wisdom regarding inevitability and electabiilty? Don't get too cocky based on polling data is the warning I got out of that. Heck at one time Junior had favorable opinion polls up near 60 percent near Commander codpiece time...now look where he's at.

I'm bothered not because you may support Obama more than I do, I'm upset because I think there's lots of chicken counting going on well before the eggs have hatched...wayyy to much.

I still would never ever be convinced that it will be easy or a definitive that Obama will win over McCain in the general election. Democrats should never take anything for granted based on polls, and should always be campaigning as if they are twenty points down..never let their guard down..ever! That's what I'm saying. And if you were smart you'd never forget that too. And to have the commenter RAM coming here telling Democrats that

This is fucking simple, people. Nominate Obama and win, or nominate Hillary and lose.
You've been warned by someone who knows this shit. Wake up.

WTF? Are you serious...NO you all wake up, and to use the words of said arrogant RAM, it's effing simple... you think your candidate will inevitably win in the general election based on some favorable polling data out now that is well before the primaries are finished and well before the rightwing noise machine and media get ramped up in the general..you're just fooling yourself being naive. If you don't then hey just submit..you will enjoy it!

I just hope and pray Obama is vetted before it's too late and it's not the right doing the vetting.

Well, I'll agree with you on one thing - very little of her possible negatives are unknown - but the fact is the number of those negatives there have been over the years will hurt her more then help her in anyway. This argument seems to be because Clinton had so many negatives aired in the past there couldn't *possibly* be more. I'm not sure that's the case nor do I think that Obama necessarily has some big evil scandal waiting in the wings. I can see how after the Clinton years that her supporters might expect that every candidate has a closet stuffed to the rim with skeletons, but I don't.

I can't see in the a general election putting her up with all her negatives against John 'The Maverick' McCain who gets so many free passes is a good idea. Hillary is getting no free passes from the media in the primary and she won't be getting any in the general. McCain on the other had the media just loves.

Also how are your advantages actually advantages over Obama? Looking around I'd say the "netroots" have largely aligned with Obama already so I'm sure he'd keep that support going into the general.

Her known past is as much if not more a negative then a positive. Those vehement and irrational critics will be there all the way to the general and far too many people have made up their minds. Every issue from the 90s many of which like travelgate have faded in memory will be trotted back out with a new Hillary centric spin. People have short memories so much of that will be enough to offset any gain she gets from "people getting to know her"

t is much more likely than not that his favorables, especially against Sen. McCain,☼ would go down somewhat as we head into the general election

I disagree.

This certainly may be the case for the pol junkies like us and a bit further down the chain of informed electorate, but I don't think we are a plurality of the total votes.

I'm not insinuating that the electorate, as a whole, aren't as informed as they should be.. wait a minute.. yes I am. I don't think that even I am as informed as I should be.

Anyway, my point is that most voters lead with their emotions. Emotions are more immediate and palpable than dull parsing of voting records.

note to Eriposte: yes, yes I know that you've addressed this issue several times, but I still encoutner this issue almost daily

Obama has a huge edge in evoking emotions from those that listen to his speeches. He's a much better sales person. What he's selling, I haven't quite figured out yet (though his use of some Bush-like rhetoric in his policy papers on his site doesn't sit well with me. i.e. Social Security policy)).

As been said again and again the frothing hate towards Hillary is real and palpable. I'm continually amazed in talking to a few friends and family that have this visceral and palpable hate of Hillary. Its real, irrational and very emotional. Emotion motivates voters.

I'm still relatively happy with both our choices, but I have major issues with both of them. Still no clue what I'm going to do come Oregon's primary.

Kefa, he's been vetted by the Clintons as aggressively as any GOP campaign.

The Clinton campaign vetted EVERY single aspect of Obama's life.

The Clintons dug up his essays from kindergarten and rummaged through his entire upbringing.

The Clintons dug up everything there was on Obama's family.

The Clintons dug up every piece of information about Obama's schooling.

The Clintons dug up every business transaction Obama has ever engaged in.

The Clintons read through Obama's books and searched hard for a quote here and there to mischaracterize or attack.

The Clintons searched through every vote Obama ever casted in the Illinois legislature.

The Clintons looked through every job Obama has ever held and any person associated with those jobs.

The Clintons examined every vote and non vote Obama ever casted in the United States Senate.

The Clintons tried to smear Obama's character with false insinuations of drugs.

The Clintons tried appealing to fears in some older Democratic voters by implying that Obama's race would make him the weaker general election candidate.

You think that isn't enough vetting? I'm sorry but if there is one thing that the Clintons will do is they will throw everything and the kitchen sink at their opponents. That's arguably one of their strengths and something Kerry failed at. What they've dug up and used on Obama has largely failed however.

If that's not vetting, I don't know what your expecting the GOP to come up with.

Hillary's problem is that the narrative that she has been running on in the primary doesn't match up well against McCain.

Hillary's argument against Obama has been that she is experienced and, even if you disagreed with her war vote, would have conducted the occupation much more competently than Bush. Well, McCain can say that too. And if you are looking for "experience", the septuagenarian has it in spades.

Obama will be much more successful than Hillary at drawing a contrast between himself and McCain.

If Obama loses to McCain, it will be because his campaign melts down. A skeleton comes out of the closet or he commits an unforgivable gaffe. If Hillary loses to McCain, not much has to change. I'd say it is a toss-up right now.

When will MSM ask Obama why he continued to vote to fund the war, when it does not comport with his claim to good judgment to oppose the war at the start? This is the question Bill Clinton raised when he said, "This whole thing is a fairytale." So instead of MSM media asking a Obama this very legitimate question, they attacked Bill for smearing their darling Obama.

I agree that general election polls this far out are meaningless. What is not meaningless, however, is the huge turnout of energized Democrats and independents in support of Barack Obama in the primaries in all 50 states. This indicates a large upside potential in support for November. With Clinton, it would be an election much like the last two, fighting on the margins in Ohio, Missouri etc. with an uninspiring nominee albeit in an environment more favorable to a Democrat.

Like others, I disagree with your two "advantages" Clinton would have over Obama: either candidate will have strong support from the netroots and the rest of the Democratic base and the GOP will always throw mud at Senator Clinton.

That said, I think electability is a stupid reason to choose a nominee. After all, we chose a bland "electable" candidate in 2004 and he LOST! We're much better off just choosing the candidate we want and letting the chips fall where they may.

Since Obama is a Republican in sheep’s clothing corporate America and will be happy if he becomes president Obama.

I find this boderline hysterical coming from the Clinton camp. I have grave fears that Obama would be a tremendous disappointment, but it is because his is running as Bill Clinton circa 1992. I am curious at how many Hillary supporters would call Bill a "Republican in sheep's clothing." Bill was a lousy Democrat, but a Republican he was not.

Kefa, he's been vetted by the Clintons as aggressively as any GOP campaign.

Actually this isn't true. First off, the best shots that the Clintons ever got off against Obama (and I say this from a completely objective perspective, not that I agreed with them) were Hillary's insinuation that Obama was too naive at foreign policy and Bill's attempt to make Obama the "black candidate".

McCain (or any GOP candidate) would feel much less restrained to attack Obama on those scores.

Second, it isn't just about vetting Obama on the facts. It is about vetting him against Rovian smears. Had you looked into John Kerry's military record, you never would have suspected that he was vulnerable to attacks on his military record by Bush and Cheney. The vetting that Kerry needed was on his effectiveness against smears.

What Obama needs to prove is a better ability to respond to the Hussein, Madrassa, dog-whistle stuff.

I find this boderline hysterical coming from the Clinton camp.

What makes this person "the Clinton camp"?

Oh man, I totally disagree about the narrative matchup. Obama relies much more on his personal history to generate interest than Hillary. I mean, can you imagine a SERIOUS candidate saying "vote for me because I attended elementary school in Indonesia"?
And, since his story, though interesting, is far less dramatic than McCain's, he loses that part of the race.
The experience factor is huge: Hillary, with her tenure on the Armed services committee, is far more able to make the argument that she is prepared to run the military than Obama.
I do not think he can make a credible case that he can be CIC---not against McCain.

Oh, and RAM: are you an academic political scientist? Given the way you present your argument---or fail to present one, I should say---I highly doubt it.
So what is your expertise? Have you been in the phone room for Gallup or something?

Hillary's negatives are not distinguishable from McCain's now, and hardly differ from Obama's.
By the way, since Obama's negatives have gone steadily up, whoever said they will NOT go up in the GE is a fool.

back to Iraq/politics. Gates has now confirmed what everyone already knew..Bush ain't pulling any troops out of Iraq. This makes it hard to argue that the Surge worked and McOld, running on the "Fight'em for 100 years" platform will be in sad shape once November comes around and Iraq is still a hell hole with 180,000 GI's stuck there so Bush can leave office with the war "still win-able". People hate the war, hate Bush and will learn to hate McOld also. The quicker Hillary and Barack start focusing on that, the better. Assuming, of course, that they both intend to get out of Iraq.

MarkL, perhaps unfortunately presidential elections are not decided by experience. Just ask President Gore. It's not decided on issues either - the polls have been with the Democrats on the issues the last two elections. The people who decide the winner basically choose who they want to see on TV the next four years. Going back at least a generation, the winner has always been the candidate who would win a race to be Prom King.

Besides, if you want to compete against John McCain on military experience, you are going to lose. You have to compete against him on judgment, and Clinton has a harder time making that argument since she supported the war.

A lot of his supporters will likely be upset when they realize that he has supported the war since joining the Senate

And a lot of people might be upset from his explanation of it. I'm not, his supporters are not, and he explains his votes quite well...using nation-wide media...and in his speeches...several times...over and over again. He does not duck the issue by claiming "Bush made me do it" as some do concerning the AUMF.

What Obama needs to prove is a better ability to respond to the Hussein, Madrassa, dog-whistle stuff.

He has proven his ability here also. He responds with dignity, grace, and an even temper.

The experience factor is huge: Hillary, with her tenure on the Armed services committee, is far more able to make the argument that she is prepared to run the military than Obama.

And she used her great experience to vote for the AUMF when other democratic members were saying that what they saw in the same information Clinton had access to stank, and somehow they had the great experience to vote "no" on the thing.

she is much more transparent than Obama and isn't likely to be had in any 'gotcha' media campaigns

Wanna bet on it?

ok ERIPOSTE--Wouldn't you expect Democratic super delegates to be aware of these statistics? Those in the known should be less swayed by spin and more cognizant of the real liabilities that Sen. Obama faces. Therefore, why the handwringing? Is this a case of political correctness supplanting political savvy, even in the most astute politician? And this is after the exit polls show serious problems for Obama with whites and hispanics. Clearly, the Democratic regulars who run the party are aware of how skewed these ridiculous caucuses are? So why isn't there push back? Why isn't Bill Clinton pushing back on this false narrative? Is there an amnesia taking hold?
And what about the educated progressive bloggers? Surely they are aware of the above? Why this willful amnesia? Why this absence of critical analysis?

Though my initial reaction to RAM is "stfu", I have to say that he is on to something here.

If Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination I will be honored to support her. I will wake up the day after the general election happy and excited and proud she will be the president unlike the day after the 2004 election where I went out to my car at 5:30 in the AM tore the Kerry Edwards sticker off my car and literally went to my office and started taking Lexapro. I also got on the Gov. Canadian web site to enquire about a visa because I wasn't sure I wanted to live in a country run by George Bush Tom Delay and Dobson.

That being said, my great concern is how she preforms against Mccain. She will fire up the republican base like no other Dem. and she will get no republican crossover votes and I suspect, not nearly the independents that Obama will get.
In that case, she may beat Mccain but it will be close and we might lose.

I don't want to just beat this wing of the Rep. party, I want to crush it. We need filabuster proof majority in the senate and Clinton cannot get us there.

I think Obama as the candidate and this last 8 years of disaster and incompitense (bad speller),will lead to a historic sweep and the end of the neocon and christan right for many years to come and that is why I want Obama as our standard bearer. E in Austin.

What is not meaningless, however, is the huge turnout of energized Democrats and independents in support of Barack Obama in the primaries in all 50 states.

You mean like in California, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, and New York?

Please. The huge turnouts in primaries have been in support of HRC. Not all the 50 states have held their contests, and Barack Obama's strongest support has been in caucuses.

You undermine your arguments with this silly hyperbole. The question we're trying to answer here is how each of our candidates might perform in a general election 9 months from now. In spite of RAM's post at the top, we can't know this with certainty.

A lot of shiznit is going to happen between now and then, and depending on what it is, the candidates will either come out looking brilliant or looking like fools.

For one example -- they're saying today that the gradual drawdown of pre-surge troops ought to be held up. How will this play out? What if they catch and kill Bin Laden? What if we start seeing suicide bombers here? What if the economy spins even further down?

To say that we know for sure who is most "electable" when things are so unstable is absurd. Here's how I look at it: you ask yourself which candidate you would want to be in charge under the most dreadful circumstance you can imagine. Who has shown they can absorb information quickly, show good judgment, balance opposing points of view, maintain their equilibrium, be gracious when they must, be tough when that's called for?

Who has demonstrated those qualities the most? That's who I want in office.

lily15, Obama has a problem with white voters? The residents of Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Washington, and Maine might be surprised to hear that.

Please. The huge turnouts in primaries have been in support of HRC. Not all the 50 states have held their contests, and Barack Obama's strongest support has been in caucuses.

Obama also has had many primary victories, but do caucuses somehow not count? They are a very direct measure of voter enthusiasm because they have to essentially become activists to participate, taking hours of their time and often waiting in huge lines. Even in a state like Maine, which should be demographically favorable to Clinton, Obama won with a big margin. How many are going to see Clinton on the stump vs how many go to see Obama? There is no way you are going to win an enthusiasm argument.

To say that we know for sure who is most "electable" when things are so unstable is absurd. Here's how I look at it: you ask yourself which candidate you would want to be in charge under the most dreadful circumstance you can imagine. Who has shown they can absorb information quickly, show good judgment, balance opposing points of view, maintain their equilibrium, be gracious when they must, be tough when that's called for?

As I mentioned, I hate the "electable" argument and I don't think it is favorable to Clinton anyway. The answer to your bigger question is either of them, frankly. Either of our candidates would make a good president as far as we can tell.

Lowdowndog:

I have a simple answer to your question. The funding of war is to support the troop that is there. Even though Obama says the war was wrong, he cannot vote against providing necessary equipments and supplies to our soldiers. Biden put it really well when he voted for the war spending. He said that the money spent was able to provide roadside bomb resistant HUMVEEs saving lot of lives of our soldiers.

You should not punish our soldiers for what Bush did because they had no choice about this war. They went to Iraq to do their duty even the war was wrong.

do caucuses somehow not count?

I wasn't suggesting they don't, just responding to the claim that "there has been a huge turnout in support of Barack Obama in the primaries in all 50 states."

The argument is not about energy, it's about electability in the fall. I want the strongest ticket, and it gives me pause when Obama supporters use hyperbole to persuade me that their man ought to be on it. One way this might play out is that he gets the nomination and then is relentlessly portrayed as a noob for the next six months.

It wouldn't be a difficult argument to make, and they could afford to be subtle. His total experience as an elected official when he put his name in the hat was four years: 2 in the Illinois state senate and 2 in the US Senate. Just by way of contrast, W also had 4 years experience as an elected official when he put his name in the hat.

I think a clever Republican could use that kind of thing in contrast to McCain very effectively, especially if events unfold in such a way that gravitas counts for more than inspiration--as they easily could.

What Obama's supporters should be doing right now is probing his weaknesses for all they're worth, not trying to cheerlead (another Bush similarity) the public into feeling the energy. Be credible. Be reasoned. I'm saying this as one who thinks that the USA is in a world of shit, and wants to see it remedied in time for my grandchildren to live free.

T2, I realize I came on a bit too strong toward you when my real anger should have been directed solely at RAM. I apologize as I have appreciated many of your comments here at the TLC for a long time even when I disagree with them.
-------------------
Anyway, just want to remind people that on Super Tuesday I believe the vote totals that separated Obama and Clinton was 50,000+ of so.. with Hillary getting the edge there so you can't say the turnout hasn't also been huge for her...and I know that is not taking into account for any of the caucus' and/or MI or FL (which Hillary won), NH (which Hillary won) or Louisianna (which Obama won) ...so there is some comparable turnout in many ways and not as overwhelmingly Obama as you make it appear.

Now don't get me wrong he's won many more states and also I believe often times his margin of win is much greater than hers....but in terms of actual individual votes it's actually pretty close for the states I mentioned and you can't forget that. Turnout for the Democratic candidates has been huge...thank goodness.

His total experience as an elected official when he put his name in the hat was four years: 2 in the Illinois state senate and 2 in the US Senate.

Actually, Obama was in the Illinois legislature for 8 years before joining the U.S. Senate, so he has more experience in elected office than Senator Clinton.

The argument is not about energy, it's about electability in the fall. I want the strongest ticket, and it gives me pause when Obama supporters use hyperbole to persuade me that their man ought to be on it.

I'm not about to argue that people should vote for Obama because of electability, since after 2004 we ought to recognize how ridiculous it is to choose a nominee on that basis. I will, however, refute arguments that Clinton is more electable. The energy behind Obama is certainly an asset - it means more people voting and more volunteer feet pounding the pavement and at the phone banks. We still ought to just choose the candidate we want for president, though, rather than go through mental contortions trying to figure out who will or won't win in November.

CAPJ,
Obama's part time job in the IL legislature in no way counts as significant preparation for being PResident. It's almost as laughable as the claim that his grade school years qualify him to conduct foreign policy.

emal, I'm not running a popularity contest...I call it like I see it. We're cool, I realize polls are hogwash...unless your guy/gal is ahead. FYI, I've not endorsed any candidate, and will support whomever gets the nod.

Yeah, MarkL, spending years in a big state legislature just counts for absolutely nothing in the experience column of a public official. But I suppose years of being a state governor of TinyState USA is just critical. More irrational Hillary-talk, you guys will simply say anything.

This "experience" factor is a canard. Lincoln served one term in the House of Reps, yet the voters--amazingly--were able to conclude he was somehow "qualified" to be president.

Bush was a two term "governor" of a no-government state---yet any rational person who heard him "speak" in 2000 knew he was a semi-retarded cretin who hadn't half the intelligence needed to be president. Intelligence and communication ability---that's the real key to the job.

Obama's been an elected official longer than Mrs. Clinton, deal with it.

Well, I notice that the anti-clinton crowd 'knows' all and we continue with the 'hysterical' and 'she can't win' narratives.

Lowdowndog is pretty right on but I'll go further. Since nobody at KOS or Huffandstuff is quoting Paul Krugman today in "Hate Springs Eternal", I guess I will:

"I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

"What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."

Yep. Dead silence is the response by KOS. But he's toned down the hate just a tad.

Tom, the whole "cult" thing some Hillary supporters say of Obama supporters would be insulting if taken seriously. This may shock you, but there are perfectly rational reasons people may choose a candidate other than yours.

Well, Cal, this will obviously surprise you, since you think in such one dimensional, either/or terms. However, you don't have the slightest idea who or what I support. But thanks for playing by trying to put words in my mouth.

Tom says: "When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon."

In addition, you ignored Krugman completely. I think he is saying that Obama supporters aren't helping elect someone so much as they are using the same GOP talking points and tactics to pull the other candidate down. The cult of Obama does not want to support the work everyone has done to oppose Bush and the GOP. They only want what they want, and they will cry and go home if they don't get it says Mrs. Obama. 'Cause this primary has devolved into a sorry personality contest of surface meaning. No thinking anywhere and your war of 'us' versus 'them' is rather shallow as well.

But since you asked, I think there is only a negligible difference between the two in terms of actual content. We have the middle of the road candidate and we have the 'new and improved' blank slate that talks like JFK but really has not accomplished anything. They both played into Bush's hand on Iraq and neither one of them represents liberals, the left or change in any real sense of the word.

But Tom will say this about Clinton: "I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection." What about your candidate?

CA Pol Junkie

Maybe you should review the exit polls in swing states and California...hispanics heavily for Clinton, sometimes by 3 to 1. La. 30% white vote..also look at Tenn. and Ok. and Arkansas (that she can actually win) The states you mention will by and large vote Republican, no matter who the Democrat is. Yes, Obama has the higher income white voter and 80-90% of the black vote. But that won't win a general election by a long shot. Obama just edged out Clinton in Missouri as a result of the black vote. She won significantly more counties. And no one here is considering the cross over vote of women...which will be significant. I'll say it again....Hillary is winning the female vote...women represent at least 55% of the population...and women will cross over to vote for a woman...That is a big number...Big....Finally, the working class white vote is going heavily for Hillary. And in California, Hillary won the youth vote. And the youth vote did not come out in droves. Reality is reality...and we won't win in November unless you can answer for these real facts. Finally, in exit polls, significantly more people would be unhappy if Obama won the nomination. It's just not OK to lose the hispanic vote...and McCain could easily pick them...or the female vote.

OK, I stand corrected if by not supporting either Clinton or Obama you're just here to stir up trouble, then.

The cult of Obama does not want to support the work everyone has done to oppose Bush and the GOP. They only want what they want, and they will cry and go home if they don't get it says Mrs. Obama.

Actually, where support does go to Obama based on the small differences between his record and Clinton's, it is because of one very important instance when he opposed Bush and Clinton did not. Poll data says that the vast majority of both Clinton and Obama supporters are happy with their choices in the primary and will support the eventual nominee. Thanks for playing, Tom.

Capoljunkie

Caucuses measure the support of higher income dedicated activists...who are able to take off at a particular hour of the day and spend three hours caucusing. Few working people can do that. No absentee voters ...few elderly...few women with childcare issue...You are advocating disenfranchising voters...Yes, these caucuses should not count...they are not representative of the Democratic party.

And they do not have a secret ballot. Peer pressure is manifest...and herd mentality the norm...To suggest that caucuses have meaning about a general election is crazy...we don't have a general election caucus...we don't elect by consensus...And the secret ballot is very important. Ignoring those significant factors is willfully blind and disingenuous.

lily15, it's interesting that you dismiss Obama victory in Missouri because he received most of the African-American vote. Just so you know, Missouri is 11% African-American, so he had to get most of his votes there from whites. Do you dismiss his victories in Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Idaho, Washington, and Maine because he got the white vote?

Most of the Democratic coalition of all ethnicities will line up behind the eventual nominee, as Democrats are really very happy with both their remaining choices. That means most African-Americans will vote for Clinton in the general while most Hispanics and women will vote for Obama if he is the nominee. You will note as well that the cross-over vote you mention heavily favors Obama, not Clinton.

But I'll say it again...the female vote is important--it is a big number...and Republican women will cross over. Dems can take the liberal and black vote pretty much for granted. Not so with hispanics and not so with working class...The Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Michael Moore liberals will not win this election for Democrats...nor will the black vote. We need more. And to assume Obama's negatives aren't going to rise once negative advertising begins is wishful thinking.

Commander William Adama: Every man has to decide for themselves which side they are on.

Captain Lee Adama: I didn't know we were picking sides. (walks off)

--Bastille Day

lily15, if you want those cross-over Republicans who will vote for Clinton, you have to also reject those cross-over Republicans who would vote for Obama but not Clinton. In the primaries, most of the people crossing over are voting for Obama, not Clinton. Here in California, lots of Republican women have been crossing over for the Democratic presidential candidate since 1992 and will continue to do so regardless of the Democratic nominee because they reject the GOP's social conservatism.

If you want to make an electability argument (which again I think is ridiculous), you have to be willing to look at both sides of the coin. By the way, you can't actually take the African-American vote for granted. Kerry only got around 80% of the African-American vote as opposed to Gore and Bill Clinton's 90% plus there is the matter of turnout. If Kerry did as well among African-Americans as Gore, that would have made up much if not all the margin he lost by in Ohio.

CA Pol Junkie, Didn't you blog here a few years ago?
I would certainly welcome a pro-Obama piece.

What will propel Obama in the GE is the Independent vote. They are tired of a war that is sucking this economy dry. They want a change of pace. Indies know McOld is the same as bu$h, and that is a 'no go' in the U.S.!

RAM,

Well put! (Responding to first post.)

I'm not saying it is fair that Clinton has been bashed by the media for the last 16 years, but that doesn't change the fact.

After the 2000 & 2004 campaigns, I want us to have the candidate that the media loves, the one they stick up for instead of scrutinizing every word in hopes of finding if not fabricating gaffes.

Plus, the right-wing noise machine will be exposed for the racists they are as they slander Obama with their off color humor.

Finally, McCain will look absolutely ridiculous against the charismatic Obama. And yes, it IS an asset that Obama didn't vote for the war before voting against it.

Seven of Six, I was once a front pager here but life got a little too crazy for blogging. Although the Clinton spin does get a bit out of control here sometimes, I don't find what's posted on the blogs to be of much consequence anyway since most people on blogs are either set with our candidate or don't care what anyone else thinks. This is all just for fun. There is a big misconception that Obama isn't substantive, but since his policies are similar to Clinton's what sets him apart is his oratory even though he includes alot of policy in his stump speech.

My support for Obama is pretty simple:
- I don't like political dynasties
- Opposing the Iraq war was the right thing to do and having done so also shows he has a spine
- I think consensus building politics is more likely to be effective than the more combative style
- He is building the Democratic Party, competing everywhere, and advancing progressivism

midwestern, media manipulation is actually a very important part of modern campaigning (unfortunately). Bill Clinton and Bush were good at it during their elections, while Gore and Kerry did a very poor job. Although I think Hillary Clinton has had some success with the media, especially on the micro level, Obama has provided a better media narrative for himself on the macro level. It must be really frustrating for the Clinton campaign when the media keeps comparing Obama to JFK.

midwestdem just what has you so convinced that the media will lay off of Obama against maverick St. McCain? Just because they haven't touched him yet?

Did you just forget how recently they ignored and feminized John Edwards, Swiftboated Kerry, Gored Gore, and made Dean famous through his Scream? Visit sites like Bob Somersby's Howler, Eric Alterman, and Mediamatters for a complete history of what the rightwing corporate owned media does to Democratic candidates and narratives, it's just stunning. Surely you don't think once Hillary's out of the picture they are going to sit idly by and continue to lay off Senator Obama...please, get your head out of the clouds and as RAM says...wake up! And you know what, I'm not asking for a biased media against any candidate or party...I'd be happy with a fair one that did their job no matter who's running or in office.

Those who fail to remember this history will be in for a rude and stunning awakening if you think this is going to last.

emal,

I guess what I am saying is the media have already succeeded in doing this to Hillary so that indies and even a lot of Dems are conditioned not to like her and Reps are motivated to vote against her.

As for Obama I think they will support him over McCain and it will be tougher even for Conservative talk radio to demonize him as they did Kerry and Gore. Plus Obama has played his cards right so far, like locking out FNC.

Notice too that in spite of their best efforts to dog Bill Clinton he came out ahead. It's a little thing called personality. Bill has it, Obama has it. Hell, even Huckster has it. Hillary just doesn't, neither did Gore or Kerry to be honest.

Look, these people appealed to US since we care about issues and details. We need a candidate who inspires more than just people like us.

What do you mean head in the clouds? My name says it all, I'm not from a deep blue state. I have my ear to the ground where it matters.

emal, follow up...

I will also take Never-for-the-War against 100-more-years all day from now to Novemeber.

CA Pol,

I agree. Don't get me wrong either their is a part of me that would absolutely LOVE to see HILLARY win and shut down the Dobsons and Robertsons who have been smearing her.

If I wasn't convinced she'll have a harder time against McCain, I would support her just for vengeance:-))

The problem is that most people do not have the time to truly and sensibly evaluate the narratives spun by the media. Eriposte is a standout in the blogosphere for critical analysis and critical thinking...He should be writing in Salon like Glen Greenwald...which bring me to my point...I am consistently impressed with the way Eriposte approaches the issues. Instead of just narrative, he gives us fact. And we consistently see that Obama supporters refuse to deal with fact. In truth, when facts don't exist to support their position, they attack Clinton. Usually that' s a sign of a weak position. And it is definitely the current operating procedure of the Republican party.

The Democrats have constructed an unfair and undemocratic method of nominating a President. It produces skewed results. Most of us were unaware of this problem with caucuses. Most of us would not want to see this mess in the future. Clearly, Obama has successfully gamed this system. I give him credit for mobilizing the activists who had the time to caucus. Clearly, Obama has run an excellent campaign. But he has done so with total and complete cheerleading from the media. He has done so with little scrutiny. And a quick look at Republican tactics from past elections suggests that the Democrat will not get a pass in the general. Therefore, it is naive to believe that if he has been annointed, The One, he can't also be destroyed as The One, the one leading a cult, the cult of personality that is Obama. This failure to imagine a media take down is the Maybe too many of them don't have enough experience with the Republican machine...but we all know what happens when history is ignored. Tom Daschle was majority leader and a long serving Senator and more importantly, cooperative leader, and he was taken down (he's now an Obama supporter). Other stories abound as mentioned in the comments above. This really isn't American Idol...President's edition.
But it is being marketed that way...even in the haphazard way that votes are counted. And instead of caution and cool, Obama supporters choose threats and thuggery...not a good sign...as Paul Krugman makes abundantly clear...though the silence about Krugman's column today is alarming in and of itself. This desire to sweep everything under the rug..does not give the rest of us much comfort or confidence. In fact, it makes us more concerned that an impending disaster lurks just over the horizon.

I won't repeat myself on the other analytical problems mentioned above...but consider Nancy Pelosi...Is she yet another divisive Democrat? Because Republicans don't appear ready to reach across the aisle under her leadership...so obviously her leadership must be the problem, not the Republican intransigence. With these flawed arguments, Democrats will never get very far. But hey, we always have inspiring speeches about change.....Who is kidding who?

midwestdem, I appreciate your no war stance and totally understand it. But you said this.

What do you mean head in the clouds? My name says it all, I'm not from a deep blue state. I have my ear to the ground where it matters.

You mean one of those states that helped install DimSon president either in 2000, 2004 or both? You know the one where the people bought the fake msm narratives that said Junyah was the type of person you'd wanna have a beer or pop with and should be president because he was going to restore honor and integrity (family values) to the presidency? And/ Or was it also one of those states that's helped given us a republican Senate and House of representatives? Because I rest my case if that is true.

And are you saying that because I live in a red town in a deep blue state, my ear on the ground here doesn't matter?...Hoookay? Because last I checked my state was still a part of the United States of America, you know the last part that elects and is governed by the (POTUS)President of The United Staes of America?