Opening the Day: Indiana and North Carolina

by: Matt Stoller

Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:28


I had the flu yesterday, so this opening the day is brought to you by uncontrollable shivering.  Does anyone else feel like Obama won the fourth game of a seven game series and Clinton is insisting on playing out all seven?

  • Democrat Don Cazayoux wins a +7 Republican leaning district by two points.  This is more of a reason to be optimistic about our chances in November, something I noted about MS-01 as well.  Freedom's Watch put in a million to this race, coordinated with the NRCC, and lost.  Their messaging doesn't work.

  • I keep hearing about a candidate, Josh Segall, from Alabama's third district.  He started a farmer's market for Alabama farmers in law school.  How awesome are farmer's markets?

  • Scott Ritter thinks we're going to attack Iran.  Here's Ritter.

    We take a look at the military buildup, we take a look at the rhetoric, we take a look at the diplomatic posturing, and I would say that it's a virtual guarantee that there will be a limited aerial strike against Iran in the not-so-near future-or not-so-distant future, that focuses on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command. And if this situation spins further out of control, you would see these aerial strikes expanding to include Iran's nuclear infrastructure and some significant command and control targets.

    My bet is that we'll let Israel do it.

  • Charlie Rangel goes after CNN.

  • Obama and Clinton differ on Iran, sort of.  She wants to 'completely obliterate' if Israel is attacked with nuclear weapons, he won't say.

Clinton is up in a fairly comfortable lead in Indiana, while North Carolina is close.  I get the sense that Clinton has decided to game entirely on going after conservative Democratic voters, using the gimmick of the gas tax holiday, pugilistic foreign policy ideas, and race-baiting.  It's unlikely to work, but even if it does, it's the last time we'll see anything like this in the Democratic Party Presidential nomination again in our lifetimes.  If there's anything we've learned from this nominating battle, it's that this has basically become a liberal party.

What are you reading?

Matt Stoller :: Opening the Day: Indiana and North Carolina

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Opening the Day: Indiana and North Carolina | 89 comments
Krugman comes bearing good tidings r.e. the financial crisis (0.00 / 0)
Good news/ bad news scenario, however. Per the Krug:

"it's possible, though by no means certain, that the worst of the financial crisis is over. That's the good news.

The bad news is that as markets stabilize, chances for fundamental financial reform may be slipping away. As a result, the next crisis will probably be worse than this one."

  Also, if there are any fellow social history nerds out there,
Artforum.com has a great piece on the spacio-politics of the 1968 vs. 2005 Paris riots:
www.artforum.com/inprint/id=19960

   And there's a piece up on Germaine Greer's '68 era porn magazine, if anyone's looking to spice up their morning:
www.artforum.com/inprint/id=19948

Race baiting? (4.00 / 5)
The ease with which  "progressive" blogs have levelled this serious charge has been a frigging disgrace.  You think Clinton has been playing in the mud?  You ought to know about playing in it, you're playing there yourself.

The so-called liberal media put it to Gore in 2000 and I have despised and mistrusted it since. Now "progressive" blogs are doing the same thing to Clinton in a primary. The chickens will eventually come home to roost.


Valid Point (4.00 / 4)
It is bizarre that blogs and most of the people frequenting them trash everyone including the MSM or other posters who critique Obama but they have no problem whatsoever trashing Clinton as if they are exempt from the type of behavior they say they deplore, which is trashing other Democrats. Talk about hypocritical.

It's the same old BS human nature where when you do something it is bad - but when I do what you are not supposed to do it is OK.

But what is really sad in this 'side-taking' mostly for Obama is the lack of respect blogs and the people who frequent them show for others on the Left. Look what happened a Kos where many Clinton supporters had to leave because of the screaming mob kids shouting them down, troll rating legit posts and opinions.

It's ironic that those who claim their guy is a UNITER are the ones who have driven a wedge between the Left and have not united at all but have divided the party though their antics.

It's further ironic that their guy wants to UNITE with Republicans and for that the blogs and those who frequent them and support Obama buy into that and toss other Lefties off the bus.

Think about it. People end up dividing their own grass roots for what?  For a guy who want to hold hands with Republicans. In all my years I never thought I see this day and I wonder what happened to rational and reason.

As far as I am concerned Obama supporters have driven a wedge in the grassroots/netroots and weakened us through mob mentality and the blog owners have ALLOWED it.

[ Parent ]
divisive (4.00 / 2)
...except more Obama supporters would vote for Hillary than vice-versa:

The poll shows that almost eight in ten Democratic primary voters would support either Obama or Clinton against McCain in November. Among Democratic primary voters who support Obama now, 70 percent say they would vote for Clinton in November if she is the Democratic nominee. Among those who support Clinton now, 60 percent say they would vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...

Thus, the Clinton camp holds 10% more assholes than the Obama camp.

[ Parent ]
I expect that when the race is over (0.00 / 0)
whoever loses will rally her/his followers and work overtime to see that our nominee trounces McCain in November.

[ Parent ]
That is right (0.00 / 0)
Which if one thinks about it logically shows that Clinton has the "true swing voters" we will need to win the race. Those Reagan Democrats/White Blue Collar Workers.

To make it simple with Obama we don't lose many true Dem voters but we don't get what Hillary has and that is the very much needed Reagan Democrats. So with Hillary we keep most of what Obama has and we get the Reagan Democrats too.

Which means with Hillary we have a larger coalition and a better chance to win the WH. The polls bare that out as Clinton is doing a few points better than Obama in a McCain match-up. Plus the electoral projections now showing up online show that Clinton carries the states needed to win and she racks up more electoral votes that Obama does because she has those Reagan Democrats in states that won't vote for Obama.

This is all about winning the WH.

[ Parent ]
except (0.00 / 0)
the same article says Obama holds a lead in independents over Hillary vs. McCain.

Personally, I think either Dem candidate will trounce McCain, so I think electability arguments are something of a tempest in a teapot.  

[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)
and those independents are part of the coalition that will vote for Clinton according to your original numbers.

You see you posted to make a point that Clinton supporters were not as loyal to the Dem party. And much to your surprise I agreed and explained not only why but who they were and what they meant to winning the WH.

Now I don't know if you understand fully what I was laying out because you didn't comment on that. Instead you came back with your "independents" argument which goes nowhere because, once again, they are part of the coalition that will vote for Clinton according to your original numbers.

The bottomline is that if Clinton gets the nomination she has a larger and more diverse and more important coalition to win the WH than Obama does. With Obama we lose the Reagan Democrats who will go to McCain who with them will likely win the election.

So you have to ask yourself - are you so wedded to Obama that you are willing to see McCain win? Or are you more interested in winning the WH with someone other that Obama?

[ Parent ]
??? (0.00 / 0)
Independents back Obama in a head to head against McCain, but in a Clinton-McCain contest independents support McCain by five points. However, more Democrats say they will vote Clinton in the fall than say they will vote for Obama.

The independents are not the same as the Democrats. Blue collar Dems---> HRC, Independents---> Obama. Whether they offset or not, I don't know, as I have no idea which is a larger group.

But I also don't care, since both Dem candidates beat McCain according to current polling. Additionally, 8 in 10 Democrats will vote for either, and that number is sure to improve when the losing candidate throws his/her weight behind the winner.

Thus, electability arguments are stoopid. Is that really the main reason you support HRC?  

[ Parent ]
I would take that (0.00 / 0)
as evidence that the Obama camp has run a more divisive campaign.  Many Clinton supporters are like me, 50+ and I've been a Democrat my whole life.

Obama has been the first major Democratic candidate of my lifetime who has run a campaign of a style that I don't care to be associated with, i.e., personal and scorched-earth.  (It's a total joke to anyone who has actually been paying close attention, that the media has actually tarred Clinton as the one who has run a divisive campaign.)  I don't like Obama personally, I despise his campaign team, and I don't like the way they have done nothing to reign in the virulence of some of their supporters.

I'll vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, but I damn sure won't campaign for him, nor will I be silent in my criticisms of him and his style of campaigning.  This election is damned important, but so is the future of the Democratic Party.

[ Parent ]
Divisive? (0.00 / 0)
I don't see what's divisive about Obama that isn't divisive about Sen. Clinton by a factor of ten. Really, where's the basis for this criticism? Was it Sen. Obama whose campaign has routinely used racist remarks to undermine and demean his opponent? That has been the biggest mark against the Clinton campaign for me, so far, and that so many supporters of hers keep heaping the blame for her campaign's racist words speaks ill of the message she tells the electorate. I do not claim Sen. Obama to be a saint or a paragon of virtue. He is not someone I look to for guidance or anything like that, but there just is not evidence that he is, among the two major Democratic candidates left, the more divisive candidate.
[ Parent ]
Another one spewing smears. (0.00 / 0)
This has gotten about as bad as election 2000. Except, this time the lies are being perpetuated by "progressives" on blogs in addition to Maureen Dowd, Chris Matthews and the rest of the usual Dem haters in the media.

Anyway, please list the so-called Clinton racist remarks that you claim have undermined and demeaned her opponent.

[ Parent ]
"Another one spewing smears"? (0.00 / 0)
Pot calling the kettle black, I reply.

-Ferraro comments about how Obama is "lucky", well, here's the offending quotation:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Clinton staffer implies ObamaJFK link means possible assassination, playing on fears of the assassination of a black president

"Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually" [passed the civil rights legislation.]

Link for the unknowing: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...

-Clinton advisor calls Obama the "imaginary hip black friend".

"If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...

-Billy Shaheen implies Sen. Obama dealt drugs and uses that implication as reason for a possible GOP attack on Obama and uses that hypothetical to diminish Sen. Obama's candidacy.  

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use... It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?' There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

-Bob Johnson derisively calls Sen. Obama "Sidney Poitier" and refers to Obama's drug use in the past while implying the Clintons were 'deeply and emotionally involved in black issues'.

"And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -­ and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book -­ when they have been involved ...

. . .

That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, 'I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.' And I'm thinking, I'm thinking to myself, this ain't a movie, Sidney. This is real life."

Link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...

It's late, I have work early in the morning, so I hope these few examples of many will suffice. Please, cherry pick at will.

[ Parent ]
meh (0.00 / 0)
Not sure why that part in the middle was struck through, but hopefully you can read what I was saying.
[ Parent ]
The reason is because Hillary is the main campaign trashing other Democrats. n/t (0.00 / 0)
I wonder how many posts you've bitched about Kos on this site if I counted them all.

You have some serious blinders on.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
Clinton is the main campaign (4.00 / 1)
trashing other Dems. This charge is per usual from this particular poster. Always opinion dressed up as fact, with nothing to back it up. Useless.  
[ Parent ]
You must have missed the past few weeks when she allied with McCain and cordinated her talking points smears with the GOP. N/T N/R (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
More proof to be found at www.hillaryis44.org n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
I ask you to back up your charge (4.00 / 1)
that "Clinton is the main campaign trashing other Dems" and you send me to some lame pink website called Hillary is 44. What is wrong with you, man?
[ Parent ]
The website is practically a snapshot of her campaign and her talking points. Sorry I figured you would have already known that. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
Thanks for another (0.00 / 0)
pointless response.
[ Parent ]
You really ought (4.00 / 2)
to go read the transcript to Obama's Fox interview. Then you will see who is trashing Dems and praising Republican's.

You ought to go back and review Obama's ad's that the GOP used in the past and that Obama co-opted to trash Universal healthcare. How's that for trashing Dems and Democratic ideas. Got your blinders on?

You ought to go read the transcript from MTP yesterday to see Obama trashing Clinton on Iran and then pretty much saying he would do the same as her.

You are the one with blinders on.

As for Kos - when we had a gubernatorial election in California Markos complained loudly about how stupid it was that in the Dem primary that they tore each other apart. And now he is one of the ones helping tear one of the Dems apart!!! What a hypocrite.

I don't respect people who complain about something like inter-party wars and then turns around and helps lead the same type of war. And I don't respect anyone online who allows a rowdy faction of posters to drive others away. That is just allowing the netroots to be divided which was one of the points of my post - and it is something you didn't bother to address.

Do you think that blog owners allowing a division in the netroots is a good thing?

What happened to moderated blogs to keep this type of thing from happening? Oh I know. The bloggers themselves have joined in like Markos has and are driving others away. What a way to strengthen the Left! We used to be a Big Tent who allowed many views. Now we are becoming a smaller tent with less views and ultimately less people which means less influence as a group. And that blog owners don't see this and how detrimental it is to the Left is amazing.

[ Parent ]
Hillary's surge (0.00 / 0)
Hear, hear.

SayitLoud, thanks for voicing my opinion, too.

[ Parent ]
false charges of racism and race-baiting (0.00 / 0)
aren't new to Matt Stoller. Last summer he happily accused Elizabeth Edwards of being sexist and racist.

"Hillary ain't never been called a N****r!" - Rev. Wright, from the pulpit, Jan. 08

"Hillary didn't cry over Katrina victims." - Jesse Jackson, NH primary

Obama's response?  chirp, chirp

[ Parent ]
damn right (4.00 / 4)
It's Obama's job to respond to anything ever said by Jesse Jackson, Rev. Wright, or any other black man.
[ Parent ]
Jesse Jackson Jr. (0.00 / 0)
is the national co-chairman of Obama's election campaign.

Putting aside everything else that has happened in this campaign, if you don't think David Axelrod sent JJ Jr on TV the day after NH with the specific intent of issuing remarks that would try to turn black voters away from Hillary Clinton, then you are living in a dreamworld.  And you know what?  It was the smart move politically.

The same could be said about Michele Obama's "misconstruing" Bill Clinton's fairy tale comment, implying that it was a comment about the idea of Obama winning the nomination as a black man.

This is not to excuse HRC for her many sins and her significant role in racializing the campaign.  The point is that these people on the Obama team are running a campaign for the highest stakes imaginable and they aren't fucking dumb.    Axelrod knew that Obama's path to victory included monopolizing the AA vote, and he did his part to make that happen.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
false charges (0.00 / 0)
Yes indeed. "Race-baiting" is such an ugly charge and it's really a stretch applying it to Clinton.

Please note that the Katrina comment you refer to was from Jesse Jackson Junior. Which reminds me...since when is a comparison to Jesse Jackson (SR.) an insult or "race-carding? I voted for him in that primary.

Also....Hillary may have not been called a n-word, but she sure has been called a B-word, c-word, witch, etc ...all sorts of sexist slurs around the "progressive" blogs. What's up with that? Where's the outrage? Okay, don't even have to go all the way to outrage...how about just irritation or disproval?

[ Parent ]
Go ahead and say it... (0.00 / 0)
"No! Obama played the race card first.  And blacks are racist because 90% of them are voting for Obama."
[ Parent ]
To your note about attacking Iran, neo-con NYT guy Michael Gordon (4.00 / 1)
has a piece on page one today that seems intended to justify a few summertime bombing runs. Hezbollah trains Iraqis in Iran, and these fighters return to Iraq targeting U.S. forces--that's what all the fuss in about. Gordon pants heavily for a few grafs, sucks his thumb for a few, and when it's all done neo-congames in Iran are apparently legitimized.
The media will soon be in full court press. (0.00 / 0)
Step one is to cook up up some "aluminum tubes" type disinfo in the neocon easy fake-oven. It looks like that pie is done and already warming in the window.

Check out this post by Col Pat Lang regarding "Israel's latest information about the Iranian nuclear programme."

Here's some of what he has to say:

"It is understood that Israel has made a breakthrough in intelligence-gathering within Iran." 

Oh yeah?  Let's see it.  Out in the open where the ordinary people of the world can look at it.  No?  Prefer to use it in private where the politically appointed grandees of the world's intelligence communities can be bullied into accepting a lot of crap in the same way that happened before Iraq?  That's not intelligence.  That's just political bullying.

What could the Israelis possibly have?  Something grand from their little photography satellites?  Something spooky from HUMINT in Iran?  How could we possibly verify anything from their HUMINT ops in Iran?  Do they have something from the world banking or technical communities?  OK.  Let's see it.

"Sources and Methods?"  Ha Ha.  Do they really think that the security of their sources are worth another war to the rest of us? 

Hopefully the progressive blogs can take a few minutes away from Clinton-bashing to start a media push-back campaign. 'Cause this is starting to look eerily similar to the buildup to war in iraq...

[ Parent ]
gamesmanship? (4.00 / 1)
Clinton is up in a fairly comfortable lead in Indiana, while North Carolina is close.

What are you smoking? Stop with the expectations bullcrap. The chances of HRC winning Indiana by double figures are significantly lower than the chances of Obama winning NC by same.

You beat me to the punch... (0.00 / 0)
NC is NOT close.  No, Obama isn't as far ahead as he was a few months ago, but the race in NC is not close.
[ Parent ]
Matt, please explain the last paragraph (0.00 / 0)
If Clinton's current tactics work (particularly if she wins NC and wins IN by a comfortable margin), then how can we be so sure that the Democratic party is a liberal party, and that we won't see similarly disgusting shenanigans in the future?

Last time I checked, most politicians will say and do what they perceive works to get them elected.

Since when is the Dem Party liberal? (4.00 / 1)
It's barely in the center. And that center has moved steadily rto the right over these past 30 years. I thought the whole point of this whole exercise was for us to move it back leftward. And please, I believe it was Chris Bowers opining just the other day that BO and HRC were both more or less centrists, and that what is currently driving this divisive primary is identity politics.

As for tactics and "disgusting shenanigans," I see them here all the time when various posters vomit up smears ad nauseum as if they are facts.  

I wholeheartedly agree with your final remark about politicians saying and doing what they perceive works to get them elected, and this primary is no different and both candidates are guilty of it.

[ Parent ]
Armando's comments about this (4.00 / 4)
Armando has a made a post about this thread at talkleft.
Here is the link

Here is the problem with the Left Blogs:

I get the sense that Clinton has decided to game entirely on going after conservative Democratic voters, using the gimmick of the gas tax holiday, pugilistic foreign policy ideas, and race-baiting.

Thinking is no longer a part of the Left blogger process anymore. Inflammatory false smears are all the rage. Three points: First, is Obama NOT going after "conservative" Democratic voters? Heck, "conservative" voters period. Isn't that what the Unity Schtick was all about? Second, it's wonderful that the gas tax holiday, a stupid political gimmick to be sure, is now intended for "conservative" voters. Is there any basis for that statement? Of course not. And we all know that the $600 "stimulus" rebate that ALL Democrats supported was a pure policy initiative. My gawd, did all Left bloggers just fall of the political turnip truck?

Armando is correct (4.00 / 1)
And don't forget about Obama's "Dems for a day" - encouraging Repubs and Indys to vote for him in the primaries while ensuring them they'll have plenty of time to reregister to vote Repub in Nov.
[ Parent ]
Well at least he didn't try to argue that Hillary wasn't race baiting. He'd have no case. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
Useless. (0.00 / 0)
Totally useless.
[ Parent ]
This is what I would have written (0.00 / 0)
I think that Hillary has given up appealing to the elite vote and is going straightforwardly for the populist vote that has  supported her after Edwards dropped out. In the context of the Democratic Party these are the more conservative voters. In polls Hillary generally has the advantage with those who self-identify as "conservative" and Obama has it with those who self-identify as "liberal". The conservative Democrats who vote for Hillary are different folks from the Obamacans who vote for Obama.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
[ Parent ]
Hillary's card (0.00 / 0)
is to bolster the narrative that her voters are the voters who are really important in November. This is a dangerous thing to push too far because the same old Democratic campaign has needed black voters at election time but has believed that they must keep the Hillary voters. This may not work anymore.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
[ Parent ]
Wait, wait, wait, wait (0.00 / 0)
So what you're saying, if I am right, (which since I am criticizing you, I probably AM NOT) is that the "Obamacans" are those who would self-identify as liberal and that the true populists are the conservatives? That's odd, why do you think that, may I ask? Or in another way, why do you think that is?
[ Parent ]
Confusing post (0.00 / 0)
I was trying to say that Obamacans and conservative Democrats are different beasts. An obvious difference is that Obamacans are willing to cross party. Conservative Democrats may be the most partisan of all, because they have stuck with their party all this time. Partisanship and ideology aren't the same thing.  
Obama wins those who self-identify as "liberal". These could be liberal Democrats or liberal Republicans. But it should be obvious that he is getting support from liberal Democrats at least.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
[ Parent ]
Shuler's Superdelegate vote (4.00 / 3)
From CNN via Scrutiny Hooligans:

"Shuler, a freshman congressman, is expected to announce Monday that he will pledge his support to whichever Democratic candidate wins his district in Tuesday's primary.

The former NFL quarterback represents North Carolina's 11th congressional district, which encompasses Asheville and the rural areas west to the border with Tennessee.

Given the demographics of Shuler's district, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is predicted to win there on Tuesday. Shuler was heavily courted by President Clinton over the last several weeks. He also attended a meet and greet session at the Clintons' Washington home earlier this spring."

http://www.scrutinyhooligans.u...

It's been raining Clintons here in western North Carolina for two weeks.  We've had Hillary x2, Bill x2, and a visit from Chelsea.  In contrast we've had one visit from Michelle Obama.  Hillary is hoping to offset major losses in the piedmont of the state by making up ground here in the more conservative mountains.

So it looks like Shuler's decided to cast his lot with the Clintons.  I'm glad he's choosing this rationale for casting his vote.  Should another superdelegate, Buncombe County Commissioner Carol Peterson, follow Shuler's lead, we could see Obama win her vote.  Asheville, a liberal oasis in the mountains, is coming out strong for Obama, and it's smack dab in the middle of Buncombe County.

Western North Carolina and the world at Scrutiny Hooligans

Great analysis. Credit where credit is due; (4.00 / 1)
it's been raining Clintons here in the Research Triangle, too.

I disagree w. Matt that NC will be close, but I don't doubt that it will be closer because of the Clintons' incredible hard work and their tour of small towns generally off the national political map.

   However, the black turnout looks to be high? If my own experience in (crowded!)early voting and in canvassing bears any significance...  

[ Parent ]
Sports metaphores... (0.00 / 0)
Does anyone else feel like Obama won the fourth game of a seven game series and Clinton is insisting on playing out all seven?

Atrios does.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

Here's a basketball metaphor: (0.00 / 0)
Obama scored big in the first quarter and then Clinton bounced back in the second and third quarters. The game is almost tied and it's looking like it's gonna be an exciting fourth quarter.

Looks like Duncan's been drinking the Kool-Aid instead of the Gatorade.  

[ Parent ]
basketball-- (0.00 / 0)
HRC's down by 5, there's 2 seconds left in the fourth quarter, and she's lobbying the ref to count two baskets from the first quarter when she got the ball through the hoop, but they were taken back for fouls (ie, FL & MI, the only way she could actually get the nomination)
[ Parent ]
Seven game series (0.00 / 0)
I feel like it's tied 2-2 in games, and we're still playing the late innings of game five.

And Obama's lost his starting pitcher, and is now having trouble with his bullpen, struggling closing games out when he's ahead.

Clinton is hitting well in the clutch, driving in her runners on base with key hits iin key innings..

[ Parent ]
Seems more like (0.00 / 0)
It's already 3-2 Obama, the score in Game 6 is 7-1 in the 8th inning, and Clinton is saying Game 3 actually went to her, and thusly Game 7 must be played, all the while making sure to steal signs whenever and wherever she can and cork the bat so she can score an extra run or two. She's a fighter, it's not over, but I feel like I can hear a gong off in the distance...
[ Parent ]
Concede (0.00 / 0)

Does anyone else feel like Obama won the fourth game of a seven game series and Clinton is insisting on playing out all seven?

No, I don't. Because if that was true, Obama could have conceded the remaining 3 games & still win the series. If you feel Obama is in that position, maybe you should advise him to stop his campaigning in NC, Indiana, Oregon etc & directly start campaiging for the GE.  

Obamacans anyone? (0.00 / 0)
"I get the sense that Clinton has decided to game entirely on going after conservative Democratic voters"
...
"If there's anything we've learned from this nominating battle, it's that this has basically become a liberal party."
=============

I want some Obama Republicans! 'Obamacans!'"Obama said, as the crowd roared in laughter at his new coined phrase.

Here is something you will learn (the hard way, unfortunately), There aren't enough far left Liberals in America to propel the Democratic party to electoral victory. You need the voters that Obama cannot reach to win in November. You need Hillary's supporters, or Obama will lose badly. Then what will this "new" Liberal (read far left) party be worth?

I've always identified myself with center left issues, but I will never associate myself with the far left. I think there's more people like me in the Democratic party then there is people like you. We may not be part of the elite blogging clique that has surfaced, but don't be getting too full of yourselves, because you'll be in for a very big surprise if you continue to try and throw us overboard.

 

What you say (about Obama needing Clinton voters) is true but so is the reverse. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
BoE Election Results Site - NC (0.00 / 0)
I know how popular state election return sites were for me in the other races. Here's North Carolina's online Election Results website:
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/De...
a most minor nit (0.00 / 0)
The official returns put the LA-6 results at 49.20/46.27. Isn't it safe to round up to 3?
Regarding the Rangel clip (0.00 / 0)
If Republicans behave predictably and go nuts on the whole Rev. Wright nonsense, Democrats should similarly coordinate to push the Rev. Moon situation out into the public awareness. Wright's "radicalism" is June and Ward Cleaver compared to Moon, who has financial connections to the Bush family and countless Republican politicians, not to mention his hundreds of millions of dollars subsidy of the Republican Party know as the Washington Times. All of the Wright coverage makes the Moon issue totally legit according to current media standards. If Dems start to utter the word "Moon" on CNN, etc. this whole Wright thing could be turned to Democrats' advantage in a big way.

miasmo.com
good article (0.00 / 0)
by Betsy Reed at The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...

concerning race, gender, etc....all those things that are messy and make us fight, but at the end of the day at least we are talking about them......getting them out in the open instead of pretending they don't exist.

Throwing out charges (0.00 / 0)
of race-baiting at both campaigns is not my idea of talking about race. That kind of thing tends to stifle conversation in my experience.
[ Parent ]
I was (0.00 / 0)
refering to the article more.....but that did not come across in my comment very well.  

And yes, people feel there is racism and sexism in this campaign and there is.....to deny it only hurts us.  The way people are addressing it is not very helpful, but I do think racism and sexism are playing a role - but if you don't see it happening, I am not going to argue with you.

[ Parent ]
Race to the Bottom indeed. (0.00 / 0)
I'm with Bob Somerby that any race-baiting that has gone on in this primary campaign has been perpetuated by the media, not the campaigns, and Betsy Reed's article in the Nation is simply more of the same.

Reed characterizes Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment post-SC as the most obvious, flagrant case of race-baiting by the HRC campaign.

Wanna know what Charlie Rangel thinks?

So, there is a pride and should be a pride in terms of seeing Kennedy if you're Irish or a Jewish candidate. If you're Jewish and certainly in an African-American candidate. That's why I was so completely surprised when the question was raised as to whether or not Bill Clinton, when he was attacked by Jim Clyburn who certainly doesn't speak for all African-Americans and he's supposed to not be involved in being neutral in this race, when Bill Clinton raised the fact that Jackson also had won in South Carolina.

Heck, we're not color blind. Jim Clyburn is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. I am one of the founders of the Congressional Black Caucus. Senator Obama is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. And so, the Clintons have already proven and I don't think they have to wear it on their sleeve that more African-Americans prospered in terms of jobs, education opportunity, moving forward. So I don't think, really, they have to put a banner.

I don't know Reed from Adam, so I trust Rangel on this.

[ Parent ]
I, unfortunately, do not (0.00 / 0)
Charlie Rangel, I do believe, is an ardent Sen. Clinton supporter, is he not? There is little reason to believe he would, as such a supporter, think Sen. Clinton or her campaign is involved in race-baiting, much less criticize her for such activity. There is truth to the notion that Rep. Clyburn has been more than neutral in this race. I do appreciate that distinction and his opinions on the matter should be taken with a grain of salt, indeed, however, that same reasoning should then apply to Rep. Rangel, as well, should it not?

I do not agree with Rep. Rangel that Pres. Clinton's comment was benign. I feel and believe it was intended to diminish Sen. Obama winning S.C. based on the color of his skin, and I think the fact that Pres. Clinton was not even asked about the topic on which he spoke, Sen. Obama's win in South Carolina as compared to Rev. Jackson in the 80s, makes such an interpretation more than possible.

[ Parent ]
Unlike you, I'll give Rangel the benefit (0.00 / 0)
of the doubt. That is, that he's an African-American first, and a Clinton supporter second. And again, unlike you, I don't presume to know the level of his "ardor" for Clinton.

 

[ Parent ]
Oh? (0.00 / 0)
It's more than possible; it's probable that Representative Charlie Rangel does not believe the Clinton campaign has done anything wrong in their relationship with black America. Still, why I should deny the importance of his political connections and relationships in his thinking and statements, I might never know. Maybe you can help me.
[ Parent ]
What have I been reading? (0.00 / 0)
Dull, technical papers about cancer biology....

Watching, is more interesting - saw "Darwin's Nightmare" over the weekend.

http://www.darwinsnightmare.co...

A devastating film that makes its points obliquely.  Almost Cinema Veritae in its simplicity.  That simplicity was not simple, of course, as director Sauper highlights in his comments on the DVD.  Powerful images and the every day drama of hard scrabble lives at the fringe.  The hopefulness shines through, on occassion, too.

It really put the whole Obama vs Clinton vs McCain vs the Media vs Reality shadow puppet version of reality into context.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

That last graph is so full of errors .... (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure where to start. Let's go sentence by sentence:

1. Clinton's lead in Indiana is exactly Obama's lead in NC, according to the most recent polls. Where did you get the idea HRC's farther ahead in IN?

2. The gas tax holiday is not a conservative idea at all. It is a populist one, especially when tied to a windfall tax on oil companies. I don't think there are any conservatives signing onto that idea. And I'll ask for the 90 millionth time, when has Hillary race-baited? And no, Bill Clinton doesn't count. He's not running.

3. Obama's coming victory (which now seems inevitable) has nothing to do with the party becoming a "liberal party," which it most certainly is not. In fact, you completely contradict yourself. The whole reason why the Dems have grown so much this year is because they are attracting more moderates and conservatives. You've said so many times yourself. And Obama himself feels it necessary to distance himself from the liberal netroots. Would that be necessary if the party has "become a liberal party"?

Obama's victory is a classic case of perfect strategy trumping poor strategy, and has little if anything to do with ideology (hence all the moderates and conservatives flocking to the Party). After Super Tuesday the race was tied, but Obama had cash and Hillary didn't, plus a month's worth of favorable calendar. That's why he won. I just think to suggest anything else is hogwash, wishful thinking, or a combination of the two.  

Throwing around charges regarding race (0.00 / 0)
When considering Matt's opinion that Hillary Clinton engages in race-baiting

Clinton has decided to game entirely on going after conservative Democratic voters, using the gimmick of the gas tax holiday, pugilistic foreign policy ideas, and race-baiting.

one should also consider that Matt flings these charges pretty irresponsibly, as evidenced by the fact that he also accused Elizabeth Edwards of being a racist.


Edwards is also doing poorly among blacks and women, but instead of understanding that the candidate's moralism is condescending and out of place, Elizabeth Edwards gets a little racist and rikyrah calls her on it.
http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

I don't know if Matt, and others, realize how aggregious an accusation that is because if they did, I'm sure they'd be more careful with it.  To people who despise racism, it's akin to spitting in someone's face, and it's an accusation that won't soon be forgotten.  

I respectfully disagree (0.00 / 0)
I truly believe it's a horrible thing to wrongly accuse someone of racism, to be sure, but it is ALWAYS much worse to decline to call out racism when one notices it.

Rikyrah, who apparently you just ignored, was the source for Mr. Stoller's criticism of Mrs. Edwards. Do you see anything wrong or strange in calling what Mrs. Edwards said at that time 'racist'? It could also be called sexist for that matter, and I don't see where the problem would be with that.

Unless you have some reason to think Mrs. Edwards' comment wasn't racist, your saying Mr. Stoller is irresponsible for calling someone racist doesn't hold water.

[ Parent ]
it is ALWAYS much worse to decline to call out racism when one notices it. (0.00 / 0)
Call "racism" where nobody else sees it? Where do these people come from? Do they even listen to themselves?
[ Parent ]
Why not? (0.00 / 0)
Why not call racism when one sees it, even if others disagree?

Where does who come from? A person? Me? Others? What sort of answer are you looking for?

Do these people listen to themselves? Are they delusional? I think it's reasonable, if one says they actually will fight racism, to speak up when someone else, especially someone they believe to be on their side, says something racist.

[ Parent ]
To help Matt out some more (0.00 / 0)
It is not so much that Hillary has engaged in "race baiting". The obsession with Rev. Wright is a kind of race baiting which would keep going no matter what Hillary says or does. Hillary gets the people who are susceptible to that by default, so race baiting helps her.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
The media is obsessed with Wright (0.00 / 0)
not the Clinton campaign. Neither she nor her campaign has (wisely) had anything to say about Wright since PA after the first media firestorm.

There is talk that Clinton surrogates are privately arguing to superDs that the Wright media frenzy hurts his "electability" in the GE and recent polls indicate that's true.

[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
The media atmosphere is of race-baiting. They don't need any statements from Clinton to happily do it all by themselves.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
[ Parent ]
Hillary is not a muslim (4.00 / 1)
as far as I know.
[ Parent ]
Nice nonsequitur. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
although I always think it kills it to explain it (0.00 / 0)
HRC's comment when asked about the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor-- in which she said he wasn't "as far as I know"-- was interpreted in some corners as intentionally leaving room for doubt, and thus a kind of race/religion/whatever-baiting.
[ Parent ]
Some corners, huh. (0.00 / 0)
I know exactly what corners you are referring to, and  they're not pretty.

STEVE KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?

HILLARY CLINTON: Of course not. I mean that's, you know, that, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says, and, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim...

CLINTON: Right, right..

KROFT: ...you don't believe that he's a Muslim.

CLINTON: No! No! Why would I? There's nothing to base that on. As far as I know. I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors... I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

That's race-baiting on Clinton's part, huh? Sowing doubt? That is a truly bogus charge when you read her entire quote and consider the badgering tone of the questioner.

Anyway, nice job of bringing up another example of a smear directed at Clinton by rabidly pro-Obama flying monkeys. Your true color is showing, and I'm not sure it's blue.

 

[ Parent ]
Opening the Day: Indiana and North Carolina | 89 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox