yep, anything that energizes the Democratic voter is good. It's clear that all the new voters want to vote for Clinton.
Posted by T2 at March 26, 2008 08:31 AMt2,
it's clear that they want to vote. many will vote for her, many will vote for him. either way, it's a good thing.
Posted by Turkana at March 26, 2008 08:34 AMHAHAHAHAHAH
T2 you crack me up.
So, on OUR planet, we consider the idea that a population has a certain proportion of, well, humans, each of whom have their own opinions, etc.
These opinions are given weight by the ability to vote for whomever they choose worthy. Now, stay with me here, this ability to vote for whomever they choose, coupled with the fact that many people have many differing opinions, means that not everyone will vote for one or another candidate.
Now, I'm sure on your planet, there is an either-or, black or white kind of dichotomy. But here we have a wonderful rainbow of minds! It is possible to have a PERCENTAGE of the vote, not just the whole enchilada.
I guess I thought that you were assuming that since Turkana said that the race would have less voters if it wasn't for Hillary, she was saying they must ALL be voting for her. Silly me! :-P
Say hi to Bizarro superman while you're there! I hear he can be a CRACK. UP.
Posted by blogtopus at March 26, 2008 08:37 AMTurkana,
I am one of those people. I actually switched from "No Affiliation" to "Democrat."
I had become exceptionally disaffected. With all of politics.
I have been waiting for an heir-apparent to the RFK legacy.
But then, this year, things became different. Rather than just keep voting "against" every stupid person the Republicans threw up as a Presidential candidate, I could instead for "for" someone for once.
I am voting for Hillary.
The significant proportion of the Obama-anians are apparently closeted neocons. As the very tactics that they have been using in the campaign are patented neocon tactics--albeit more hamfisted than what the neocons would do (as they are all neophytes). A lot of the comments that I have been reading in the threads below on TLC from Obama supporters are not only ill-informed, they are also emotionally immature responses for the most part as I see it.
Anyone over the age of five can call others names, and be mean-spirited. It's a no-brainer (which is why Republicans usually don't have much brains among those that run for office on their side of the aisle, in my opinion).
Obama will not ever get my vote for President. But neither will McCain.
I don't want to have a choice between a Neocon Republican (as McCain is), and a "Neocon-lite" Republican, as Obama is.
That's not a choice.
That's Totalitarianism, dressed up as choice.
I hope that Hillary does exceptionally well in the rest of the primaries of the season.
And if she does, she can make the case that she should be the nominee.
And I would vote for her in the Autumn, as well.
She is the only one of the three candidates that has been there, as in how to engage the inner workings of a complex, byzantine bureaucracy from the inside. McCain has a lot of experience in the Senate. But not in the White House.
Obama has nothing. No experience does not get my vote.
Posted by Troubled American at March 26, 2008 08:38 AMIf registrations are way up, and Clinton holds a good lead in the polls, how can Team Obama and pundits continue to insist that it is Obama who is generating all the new recruits for the Party?
I was in Philly yesterday, and must admit that his "Hope" posters in the bus shelters are pretty cool.
Posted by bob h at March 26, 2008 09:09 AMTroubled American:
Thank you for your eloquence. I agree 100%, but could not have said it as well as you did.
BTW, the Obama campaign's techniques seem to come directly from Rove's playbook - smears of racism to silence all criticism, portraying your opponent as 'untrustworthy', etc.
Hillary was one of the Dem senators that voted to authorize an actual, long-planned and desired neocon operation, Bush's Iraq invasion, Troubled Am.
And she still thinks that vote was great and correct---Bush was the one who fucked up and "misled" her; she just didn't see fit to object at the time. She also has participated in neocon sabre-rattling with her support of the absurd (neocon) Kyl-Lieberman "resolution" against Iran. And you might want to read up on a little organization called AIPAC.
That's association with and support of ACTUAL neocon plans and proposals by Hillary. Yet Obama and Obamans are the "closeted neocons" and "neocon-lite" according to you.
Great thinking--but then by your own admission you are a "neophyte" to politics.....
Posted by euzoius at March 26, 2008 09:16 AM
Gah.
I usually view the upcoming election as a metaphor - one that is inevitably farming-related since I live in those sticks. This election is like planting a years-fallow field; the attention and waste dumped on the public makes it an potentially ideal ground with which to harvest a bumper crop of elected officials. But Democrats will have to work the field as they should a dispirited electorate in which to maximize their gains.
The problem is that the sniping and attacks back and forth between the camps ain't workin' the field.
Sen. Clinton's candidacy has brought voters out. Sen Obama's has as well - and they are animatedly charged in a way that is fresh and exciting. Clinton's camp is a different sort of excitement that I can't quite identify as the same - others probably can define it better than I can. and it goes on for every other withdrawn candidate's campaign in the Democratic field. Look at the interest and support Edwards & Richardson picked up and the energy they injected into the campaign.
So I sure as hell can't take anyone seriously that states they can't vote for the opposing Democrat, or anyone who can't seem to understand that the Republican Party - in it's current state - is an absolute, corrupt disaster that must be defeated as Priority One in this election.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 26, 2008 09:47 AMSeems to me that this is good for democracy.
Speaking of what "is good for Democracy"... seems as if the campaigns of McCain and Clinton have decided to work together in a "double-barreled attack" on Obama:
Sen. Barack Obama offers himself as a post-partisan uniter who will solve the country's problems by reaching across the aisle and beyond the framework of liberal and conservative labels he rejects as useless and outdated.But as Obama heads into the final presidential primaries, Sen. John McCain and other Republicans have already started to brand him a standard-order left-winger, "a down-the-line liberal," as McCain strategist Charles R. Black Jr. put it, in a long line of Democratic White House hopefuls.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has also started slapping the L-word on Obama, warning that his appeal among moderate voters will diminish as they become more aware of liberal positions he took in the past, such as calling for single-payer health care and an end to the U.S. embargo against Cuba. "The evidence is that the more [voters] have been learning about him, the more his coalition has been shrinking," Clinton strategist Mark Penn said.
The double-barreled attack has presented Democratic voters with some persistent questions about Obama: Just how liberal is he? And even if he truly is a new kind of candidate, can he avoid being pigeonholed with an old label under sustained assault?
I knew it wouldn't be long before Mark Penn got his employee, Charlie Black, in line!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 26, 2008 09:54 AMIf registrations are way up, and Clinton holds a good lead in the polls, how can Team Obama and pundits continue to insist that it is Obama who is generating all the new recruits for the Party?
Registrations for Dems in Penn. are way way up, and 64% of those new registrants are African-Americans and the well-educated, demographics that tend to favor Obama. Too bad it's not an open primary that would be more reflective of the will of the people instead of the cabal that brings us the likes of Pelosi and Reid.
I don't want to have a choice between a Neocon Republican (as McCain is), and a "Neocon-lite" Republican, as Obama is.
Then you must be pleased that Hillary takes responsibility for the success of "The Surge" and that you might get to vote for George Bush-lite. Whatever you do, make sure you don't vote for the liberal. And with Clinton you can can be sure you won't be voting for anything liberal.
The evidence is that the more [voters] have been learning about him, the more his coalition has been shrinking," Clinton strategist Mark Penn said.
I wonder why Blackwater, USA is worried about Obama?
Posted by phidipides at March 26, 2008 10:04 AMThats a great idea! I hope all of our future primaries are like this and drag out till the convention. We should wait until the convention so that every democratic vote counts.
Of course this is snark. Me being from Texas, i always wanted to have some decision in who would be the democratic canidate, but this is way too long and is hurting the party.
My hope is that the DNC makes new rules that force all states to have their primaries within 4 to six weeks. That way all votes count, and the primary doesnt drag out till the convention.
Posted by Chris at March 26, 2008 10:10 AMFrom Gallup
McOld vs. Clinton...19% of Obama's supporters go to McOld.
McOld vs. Obama...28% goes to McOld.
Your problem, my delight. These are Democrats only in the poll. What a nice race this is turning out to be. Who would have thought it.
TA, I don't name call, especially in somebody else's home.
Posted by peter at March 26, 2008 10:19 AMThat Washington Post article that Seven of Six linked to is interesting. For one thing it doesn’t say anything about the Clinton and McCain campaigns "deciding to work together".
It does include some interesting tidbits from several Obama "surrogates" though.
He has strong views about things but is willing to listen and work with people with different views, rather than demonizing people," said Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), an Obama supporter.
I wonder if Obama would demonize Richard Scaife?
"He's really not an old-fashioned liberal at all," (Call)Sunstein (a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and an informal Obama adviser) said. "He's a market-oriented Democrat from the University of Chicago with strong religious convictions."
Market-orientated. Hmmmm.
University of Chicago? I’m not that up on the whole “dog whistle” thing but….
Further confounding the liberal framing, (Robert) Reich said, is Obama's multiracial background and the historic nature of his candidacy, which may distract from the usual political definitions. "Voters are amazed. They say, 'Here's the son of a black African and white Kansan, brought up in Hawaii and Indonesia, a star at Harvard Law School.' It's not a traditional biography," Reich said. "So right away people are open to the reframing that he's offering."
Sorta like people are attracted to the concept?
Interesting article.
troubled american..here..here..coulldn't have said it better.obama has nothing for me to vote for...i find him..his campaign..and his supporters..beyond divisive..and i believe that given a chance for all the votes to have been counted in the primaries..she would win..the phoney caucus results in red states have blrred many peoples minds...the democratic base in this country i believe is firmly behid hillary..states such as california..new york..texas..michigan florida..new jersey..ohio.. pennsylvania.are behind her....if the democratic party discounts that....nader gets my vote..there was a time i would have voted for obama..that time is past..i have seen quite enough of him and his good judgement..actually he reminds me a lot of someone else who called himself a uniter...
Posted by dennis at March 26, 2008 10:31 AMI've been reading this blog since a few months after its inception. It's now become a slough of immaturity. I'm out of here... permanently.
Posted by Danton at March 26, 2008 10:51 AMI'm out of here... permanently.
Don't go.
Help raise the maturity level instead.
Posted by snark at March 26, 2008 10:57 AM...obama has nothing for me to vote for...i find him..his campaign..and his supporters..beyond divisive...
Although it's a shame you won't examine Obama in greater detail, his ability to pull Independents and Republicans means that what you do if he gets the nod really doesn't matter very much. Vote McCain if you wish. I'm sure your way of thinking leads you to conclude he would be a better President. Besides, the "Surge" is working. Hillary even claims credit for its successes. That's the candidate you should get behind. The one who voted for and supports current policy in Iraq. You also get that with McCain, so there is no real difference in your vote.
Posted by phidipides at March 26, 2008 11:03 AMHelp raise the maturity level instead.
Yeah, don't go! It's almost nap time, and then we get milk and cookies! Yay!!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 26, 2008 11:07 AMphidipidies
i thought you were an academic..you should read a little slower..or proof..i said i would vote for nader and was pretty specific...so thanks for you analysis of my thoughts ..and hillary's too by the way...you seem to know what everyone really means...and have been a sarcastic hillary baiter from day one..
Posted by dennis at March 26, 2008 11:11 AMand i have examined obama in great detail..it didn't take long
Posted by dennis at March 26, 2008 11:13 AMFor one thing it doesn’t say anything about the Clinton and McCain campaigns "deciding to work together".
Just thought I would carry on my effort to make sure that "Barack Obama's apparently successful disenfranchisement of the voters of Florida and Michigan" holds true.
Hey, there has to be someone to distort the views of the media... after all their aren't enough bloggers doing that already. ;)
But really, there is no denying the connection between Charlie Black and Mark Penn.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 26, 2008 11:27 AMDennis,
It's hard to examine a record when there's a lack of evidence
The immature baiters here don't bother me, but if the FL/MI results are not accounted for in deciding the nominee, many will leave the resulting Dem(sham) party before the GE.
c’est la vie.
as far as hillary's stance on the war...then and now..it is centrist..it was.. and is.. to get elected..and it's smart..perhaps not to a lberal or an idealist...but it is to a realist..in order to change anything..you need to be elected...and john mccain cannot use her stance against her..that is my opinion
Posted by dennis at March 26, 2008 11:32 AMBut really, there is no denying the connection between Charlie Black and Mark Penn.
But why even bring them into it? There's a much stronger connection between McCain and Clinton!
They're both....employed as United States Senators!!!!!
Oh...wait...that doesn't work. ;)
Posted by snark at March 26, 2008 11:41 AMI enjoy coming to this site for my daily fill of Clinton meltdown bizarro rationalization.
PS...Your candidate lies about verifiable facts. She's toast.
Obama drinks Hillzilla's milkshake. He drinks it up!
Posted by RAM at March 26, 2008 11:51 AMhey ram.
.thanks for dropping by..everything you say makes so much sense......
Posted by dennis at March 26, 2008 11:55 AMeuzonius...
So did Kerry who went on to become nominee over at least 4 other candidates who either opposed or did not vote for the same legislation.
That argument doesn't work--not with me at least.
Posted by kat at March 26, 2008 12:19 PMDennis:
You crack me up. What, you mean you don't find RAM's comments compelling?? Or is it just RAM's intellectual maturity that impresses you? Thanks for making me LOL.
Posted by at March 26, 2008 12:19 PMdennis: "if the democratic party discounts that....nader gets my vote..there was a time i would have voted for obama..that time is past..i have seen quite enough of him and his good judgement..actually he reminds me a lot of someone else who called himself a uniter"
wah, wah, if Hillary doesn't win then I'm going to take my ball and go home to vote for Nader. Nader?!?!?!? yeah, that worked so well the first time! you're either a right-wing agent provocateur (TROLL) or a fucking idiot
like a stopped clock, pants pissing peter is occasionally right:
"Clinton supporters appear to be somewhat more reactive than Obama supporters. Twenty-eight percent of the former indicate that if Clinton is not the nominee -- and Obama is -- they would support McCain. That compares to 19% of Obama supporters who would support McCain if Obama is not the nominee -- and Clinton is."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
let's give a big round of applause to the Obama supporter AND Hillary supporters who want a third Bush term.....assholes
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 26, 2008 12:34 PMwow, interesting blog about Hillary playing footsie with right-wing scumbag Richard Mellon Scaife:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/185608.php
Posted by at March 26, 2008 12:48 PMI want a President with balls this time. That's why I support Hillary.
For over 15 years she's been attacked time and time again by anyone and everyone. Called a bitch, whore, slut, hag, murderer, lesbo, cunt, (just to name a few) and she keeps slogging along, fighting back, winning her elections and gaining kudos from her constituents and enemies alike. After the past three months of media bashing and 1/2 the Democratic party calling her the same names and accusing her of the same atrocities the despicable right-wing did for all these year and insisting she drop out of a race that is really almost evenly divided, she continues with a determination any executive would envy. She has comeback time and time again. She's a true fighter. I don't agree with her on a lot of things, but neither do I agree with Obama on a lot of things. The difference is I know she's more than just talk and can take what will be slung. I just don't know that about Obama.
He'll get my vote, though, if he's the nominee, so don't believe all those polls.
gay veteran
i do not believe barack obama to be electable..there is no beef...regardless of his mindless supporters..his campaign has been rovian..and it is they who have injected race at every opportunity..rezko is a problem..as is reverend wright...they said they would abide by the dnc decision for mi and fl..that was a smokescreen to run out the clock..they have no intention of wanting those votes counted...two states in hillarys corner disenfranchised..the caucus wins in red states are bogus..the democratic base i believe is behind hillary..ralph nader who i despised in 2000 made a lot of sense to me when he said that if the democratic party continues to support losers..they deserve what they get..i will not support obama...i do not trust him and i have come to even dislike him..i do not think he can win..if he is nominated i will vote for nader..as i believe is my right..regardles of name calling..it is you people who have been completely bamboozled..by and empty suit..with no record..btw..i am a veteran as well..i'll keep the rest to myself
Posted by dennis at March 26, 2008 12:53 PMWhat you say is true. Having Mike-Huckabee-With-a-Uterus continue in the race is good for Democratic voter registration and that certainly is a good thing. On the other hand, the continued Democratic primary battle does detract from being able to define John McCain while leaving him free to define Barack Obama.
Posted by kaleidescope at March 26, 2008 01:15 PMhuckabee with a uterus..that'cute and very clever...i think the country has a pretty good definition of john mccain..seeing as how he has been around for fucking ever...perhaps the one guy in this horserace that people know very little about..by design i think..is barack obama..and from what i can glean..the more they learn ..the less they like him..so i fully understand their tact know is to make hillary look like the spoiler..not true..but very little of what they say and do is
Posted by dennis at March 26, 2008 01:25 PMdennis: "...if he [Obama] is nominated i will vote for nader..as i believe is my right..."
yes, you do have the right to vote for Bush's third term
FL and MI can have a primary or caucus UNDER THE RULES if their legislatures vote to do so
Posted by gay veteran at March 26, 2008 02:32 PMWorse thing ever happened to LC is Turkana.
Posted by Tom Towles at March 26, 2008 03:20 PMthanks, tom. after seeing your comment about chelsea, i have to say that coming from you, that's mighty praise.
Posted by Turkana at March 26, 2008 03:42 PMI just wondering if those new registrations are true Dems or just Rush and Bill's cross-overs to try to win. Anyway, can anyone expalin Bill Clinton going on the Rush Limbaughn Show, I mean talking about being a traitor to all our Democratic Party Principles.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/clinton-went-on.html
Posted by a4L at March 26, 2008 03:57 PMa4L,
OMG what is WRONG with people, Bill Clinton wasn't on Limbaugh. It was footage from a previous interview. Maybe you should CHECK YOUR FACTS instead of just repeating the unchecked rumors of internet bloggers. Clinton was interviewed on Davis’s show in Texas (y'know Rush isn't IN TEXAS) and HE replayed the interview later when he guest hosted for Rush. The fact that you ACTUALLY BELIEVED that rumor is just PATHETIC AND SAD.
And why are you quoting Andrew Sullivan? He's a Libertarian Republican who has been bashing the Clintons as long as A. Huffington (y'know back in the day when she used to be a RABID REPUBLICAN). He's ANTI BUSH AND THE WAR (now bc in the beginning HE WASN'T), but he's STILL A LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN. Why do you think he voted for Ron Paul?
Posted by kacey at March 26, 2008 04:40 PMkacey,
if it's about the clintons, and it's bad, it must be true...
Posted by Turkana at March 26, 2008 05:10 PMMany who are rightfully celebrating the huge surge in voter registrations in Pennsylvania are also whining that Hillary Clinton needs to drop out of the race
Many are...
Some say...
Usually reliable sources insist....
Sorry, but the "many are" routine just doesn't pass muster.
Our party is disintegrating and we are busy cutting and slashing each other. I have not given up as many have above, but this is the worst I have ever seen or can remember in the Democratic Party. Recently released statistical analysis backs that up.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657171729866843.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Posted by angryman at March 26, 2008 07:42 PMso maybe I just pulled a Hillary lied or mismember my facts. but seeing how she's cozied up to the republicans and Mellon Scaife anything is possible
Posted by a4L at March 26, 2008 08:04 PMInteresting article on Deval Patrick, author of the Words speech. Seems like governing is a lot harder than he thought. Course, he had no experience either.
Posted by KathyVT at March 27, 2008 02:23 AM
Here's the link on Patrick:
Early Dazzle, Then Tough Path for a Governor
Posted by KathyVT at March 27, 2008 02:34 AMso maybe I just pulled a Hillary lied or mismember my facts. but seeing how she's cozied up to the republicans and Mellon Scaife anything is possible
you do realize that you've been WELL TRAINED to believe that don't you? why else would you automatically believe lies? i'm guessing that's not the ONLY LIE you've been WELL TRAINED to believe
Posted by kacey at March 27, 2008 03:28 PM