do you really think the country will vote for either a woman or a african american?
as much as i hate bob novack, his editorial in the wash post mentioned the bradley effect. as much as 25% of hrc voters plan to vote mc cain in the general. as much as 12.5% of obama supporters will vote mc cain.
mitchell in his huff post article spoke of the racist dems voting for hrc, and alluded to their voting mc cain because they dont' want a woman.
the church in sc, you mentionned in a previous post. all of this sends a troubled portent.
damn, even in the comment sections, folks state they would never vote obama. we are well and truly fcuked.
what say you?
Posted by anthony at April 25, 2008 01:57 AMMaybe a party that allowed a chimp to be elected twice and then conducted the worst primary in history to actually give a second simion a shot, should be "dumped on".
Posted by TIKI AL at April 25, 2008 03:02 AMwhat say you?
I guess the Dems better just nominate a white guy.
Posted by snark at April 25, 2008 04:32 AMI agree with the commments above. We are in a very difficult situation; a situation that seems to be better acknowleged by some folks who are not progressives, e.g. Novak, Sullivan.
Some observations:
(1) We on the left talk about 'sexism' fairly openly and accurately; except when certain folks equate not favoring Clinton as 'misogony'. We speak of racism more cautiously. The right speaks indirectly about these issues with its constant repetition of the Wright talking points, Obama's 'unelectability', etc. CNN played the entire "NC" Repub commercial attacking the two Democratic gubenatorial candidates for supporting Obama who is ... "too extreme for us". McCain didn't back that? C'mon...
(2) Clinton (who can't win by the vote-based delegate count)is directly providing fodder for Karl Rove, Hannity, etc. by pomoting her negative campaign; particularly her assertion that ONLY she and McCain are "qualified to be President".
(3) If Hillary somehow perserveres via the superdelegates by tearing Obama down and is generally perceived as 'stealing' the primary election, do we really think that blacks will turn out (as they have typically) in suffient numbers for Clinton or will they stay home?
New, young voters drawn into the electoral process by Obama?
Look at the demographics! Doesn't seem like the women's vote per se will give Hillary overwhelming odds in the General Election. Believe it or not, not all women vote Democrat.
(4) CA Pol junkie is correct that primary polls do not significantly correlate with GE voting patterns, electoral votes, etc. So this is a spurious argument[see Chait, below].
(5) The right wing 'attack machine' is almost exclusively focused on Obama, whether stating the Hillary is the stronger candidate that they "fear' or fanning the Wright and 'cling' issues. Do we really think that they fear Hillary the most????? Don't buy their obvious propaganda-look at the RCP national match-ups.
(6) Chait responds to the Judis "unelectability" argument, in part, with the folllowing:
"... right now Obama is having a hard time winning blue collar whites on the economy in large part because he has an opponent with a virtually identical economic platform. When he has an opponent who's tethered himself to President Bush's highly unpopular economic policies, winning over blue collar whites on the economy will get a lot easier.
Extrapolating from primary dynamics to general election dynamics is very dicey business."
The Dems in Congress are walking away from health care reform the candidates are talking up. Obama's walking away from his withdraw from Iraq pledge. And we have two chickenhawks, as that senior senator from NJ phrases it, running against a former POW.
One states he wants to invade Pakistan, the other says she will obliterate Iran if provoked.
And now the savior is going on Foxnews and dissing the netroots. No wonder Democrats like them both.
McOld is going to have a field day with either of these tow jokers.
Posted by peter at April 25, 2008 05:10 AMsorry, spelling error:
should be 'misogyny' as in Turkana's 'Misogyny Network'
what does it say about this country where two candidates if white males would clean mc cain's clock in the ge.
mc cain is bush warmed over, except he actually went to a war, and he's using it like rg used 9/11. mc cain has no clue of the middle east, no clue about the economy, no clue about blue collar, small town america, no clue about how to struggle from paycheck to paycheck, no clue about shia and sunni, and is on his knees to hagee and the like, while obama gets raked for rev. wright. where very few actually listened to the entire sermons.
snark, i hate to say it, but we'd be better off as a party if "the white guy," won. no matter how progressive we seem to be here, despite our differences, in the ge, folks will not vote their pocket book, but god, gays, guns, and immigrants. it is the truth. the msm continues to allow mc cain a pass with the hagee comments, when they are worse that what wright says. they allow the sunni, shia bs statements pass as a gaffe of age.
peter:
when exactly did he say he'd invade pakistan? he said he would not ask permission to take bin laden out if he had solid intel. there's a difference. too bad you refuse see it as such.
take 10 chopsticks and wrap them in a tight bundle and they are hard to break. But each can easily be broken individually. The GOP is the bundle. The Dems are the individuals...Big Tent full of single chopsticks. It appeared for a while that the horrors (and I mean that literally) of the Bush years would, for once, form a Dem bundle. It seems, however, that there are those that would rather the sticks stay separated for reasons of their own. One can argue that it is the individual sticks that make the Democratic Party what it is. I agree. But it is what it is; easily broken.
Posted by T2 at April 25, 2008 06:16 AManthony,
The demographics are moving away from what 'the racist whites' like. Unfortunately for 'the black man' the trend would seem to favor an Hispanic president before an African American or female one. ;)
But I think you're putting a bit to much stock in the racism and sexism of us 'white folks'. Obama or Clinton can, and should, beat McCain this fall. Call me an optimist.
Posted by snark at April 25, 2008 06:22 AMtake 10 chopsticks and wrap them in a tight bundle and they are hard to break.
They also will have lost their functionality.
Which is a perfect analogy for the GOP.
Is that the model you want for the Democratic Party?
Posted by snark at April 25, 2008 06:27 AMOne states he wants to invade Pakistan...
He said he would bomb al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if he had to, not invade. In fact after Obama was ridiculed for saying so, bu$h did this very same thing!
Stop the fucking lying petie.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 25, 2008 06:27 AMtake 10 chopsticks and wrap them in a tight bundle and they are hard to break.
Rigid as well. Just like the GOP.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 25, 2008 06:40 AMsnark, I think T2's analogy was correct in saying we have to bond (work) together to beat the republi-con attack machine.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 25, 2008 06:44 AMsnark, I think T2's analogy was correct in saying we have to bond (work) together to beat the republi-con attack machine.
That's fine. But you've gotta accept the good with the bad. Try eating your chinese food with ten chopsticks bound up together.
Posted by snark at April 25, 2008 06:51 AM
Try eating your chinese food with ten chopsticks bound up together.
After living in HI for 3 years and using chop sticks... I now use a fork.
I'd say the GOP is quite functional in it's tight bundle. We may not agree with the function's it chooses, but last time I checked they had non-functioned themselves into 8 years in the WH while the "functionally diverse" Dems stood around shivering in fear that they might say something "non-patriotic".
The point was that the Democratic Party is diverse, and that is its blessing and curse. Quoth snark "you've gotta accept the good with the bad". But in the current situation, behaving like scattered chopsticks will result in something Very Bad.
'Course a bundle can be used to bludgeon someone into spoon-feeding you...
Posted by iamcoyote at April 25, 2008 07:31 AMI'd say the GOP is quite functional in it's tight bundle. We may not agree with the function's it chooses, but last time I checked they had non-functioned themselves into 8 years in the WH...
Problem is that the Democratic party is much more diverse than the Republican party. The disparate parts of the GOP coalition did not have to compromise on issues of major importance to them. They just had to be willing to play along with things they may not necessarily like but that they can live with.
The last time a Democrat managed to do that was under a guy named Clinton. And we all know what wonderful repute he is held in around these parts these days. Why, the Clintons are practically not even Democrats anymore!
Posted by snark at April 25, 2008 07:42 AMi voted for him twice - he did manage to herd the cats well.
"Problem is that the Democratic party is much more diverse than the Republican party." uh, yeah, like I said.
Perhaps a better phrase than "functionality" would have been "functional identity". Are the Democratic chopsticks ready to cede a good portion of their functional identity for strength? From the vitriol prevelant throughout the blogosphere I have my doubts.
Posted by snark at April 25, 2008 07:48 AMi voted for him twice - he did manage to herd the cats well.
And now he's a pariah.
Posted by snark at April 25, 2008 07:49 AMSnark please quit saying things that I agree with. Either Hill or Obama will beat McCain. Hill's problem is not that she is a woman it's that she voted for and supported the Iraq war/occupation.
Posted by JohnT at April 25, 2008 08:03 AMPriceless---Bush blathering that the upcoming rebate checks will "help people pay those high prices at the pump and the groc'ry store!"
Yeah, like that was the "stimulus" the economy needed and what we were aiming at. And like those prices are somehow gonna be coming down after the rebates are all spent.
What a colossal idiot. As a dark comedy, the Bush Era is unsurpassable.
Posted by euzoius at April 25, 2008 08:07 AMI was listening to the Diane Rehm show this morning and they were discussion the food shortages and the role biofuels are playing in this. A couple of the guests said more than once that this was an unanticipated consequence of going green. How could this be unanticipated when little ol' me was worrying about it a year ago? I didn't think it would play out this soon, but I worried what would happen when poor countries were starving while we poured food into the gas tanks of our SUVs. It's not rocket science. You use food for fuel (or the land you used to grow food on to grow fuel on) and there will be rising food costs. Why wasn't this addressed?
Posted by CG at April 25, 2008 09:21 AMthe role that ethanol (not BIOFUELS) are playing in the food crisis. Ask the repubs and Archer-Daniels-Midland your question.
You might want to read the newer post on this issue.
Posted by tfitznc at April 25, 2008 09:47 AMThe current food crisis is largely resulting from the collapse of the dollar (commodites are sold in dollars) which is the result of the Feds cutting of interest rates to save the Wall Streets fraudsters.
Blaming ethanol is apparently what the right wing media is doing and it is a right wing frame.
I'm agnostic on the environmental benefits of ethanol (when Repubs support anything I'm suspicious), but it is not the cause of current food crisis---that's the Fed saving our Wall Street investment banks.
Posted by euzoius at April 25, 2008 09:56 AMeuzoius,
To be clear, I was not agreeing with the poster per se. I was just trying to clarify that the issue, if any, is not one of biofuels as a general class, but of ethanol.
Ethanol is a very flawed biofuel alternative that is a product of ADM advertising and commodity speculation. It is not 'the answer' for a variety of reasons including its carbon footprint and the opportunity cost of its use as a fuel vs. foodstock.
Obviously, the current food crisis is not a function of ethanol but of the weakened dollar. The implications of long-term use of ethanol as a fuel is IMO equally obvious.
Posted by tfitznc at April 25, 2008 10:06 AM
Why, the Clintons are practically not even Democrats anymore!
Probably has something to do with centrism, triangulation, losing the House, and forwarding too many republi-con bits of legislation. He was republicon-lite with "Dem" after his name and not much more. Assuredly better than either Bushes and Ray-gun, but that standard sets a low bar indeed.
Posted by phidipides at April 25, 2008 12:01 PM"take 10 chopsticks and wrap them in a tight bundle and they are hard to break."
...but they make a much bigger fire, and are 10 times more difficult to get shoved up your ass.
I herd my Asian Leopard-cats with chopsticks.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 25, 2008 01:18 PMProbably has something to do with centrism, triangulation, losing the House, and forwarding too many republi-con bits of legislation. He was republicon-lite with "Dem" after his name and not much more. Assuredly better than either Bushes and Ray-gun, but that standard sets a low bar indeed.
T2,
Good luck with those chopsticks.
Posted by snark at April 25, 2008 01:50 PMRight wing...England, Australia, New Zealand, the UN, Japan, yeah right wing...stay well my friend.
Posted by peter at April 25, 2008 02:36 PM