Wednesday, April 23, 2008

It's Time for the Obama Camp (and the NY Times) to Stop Whining and Start Winning

As many had expected, Sen. Hillary Clinton won a decisive victory in yesterday's Democratic Pennsylvania primary against the presumed frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama. Yet while basically every single prominent talking head on CNN and MSNBC acknowledged the significance of this win, the Obama camp, and the NY Times in a blistering editorial Wednesday, have trashed Clinton and reduced Tuesday's results as anything but. It's time to face facts here. And the simple fact is, she is winning and he is not. Obama's popularity clearly peaked win February winning streak. Since then, it's been all Hillary.

To be sure, a Democrat cannot string together consecutive wins in California, NJ, NY, Massachusetts, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania without being taken seriously as an extremely viable candidate. And get this: you can be sure that at some point very soon voters in both Michigan and Florida--two big states sure to rally behind Clinton--will have their voices counted as well. Anyone who thinks the Democratic Party is going to nominate a candidate and send them into a general election after disenfranchising voters in two key states is terribly mistaken.

Make no mistake: Obama is a fine man, a brilliant thinker, and would likely make for a great president. But he's one lousy candidate. He can blame no one but himself and his handlers for failing to close the deal with voters. For failing to use his huge 10-state win on Feb 5th to build successful momentum in his campaign against Clinton. For failing to truly unite Democrats; he simply cannot, despite pouring buckets of money and time into the race, appeal to working class white voters who comprise most of the Democrats' historical base.

Let's look at Pennsylvania for a moment. She won by an impressive 10% margin, which is what every pundit said she needed in order to prove her viability going forward. Sure, the Obama camp is discounting that by saying the lead "was 20%" a couple of months ago, but by that same analogy then, Obama's popularity peaked months ago as well. Can't have it both ways, Obama-cans. If we're gonna judge Hillary today against the backdrop of her past "highs," then looking at how Obama's fallen to Earth lately, we should stop the race now and give her the nomination. Regarding the popular vote, she cut her deficit by almost a third. Not much movement, however, with delegates; she picked up about 35. Overall, Obama outspent her 3-1, invested an incredible amount of time canvassing all over the state to huge crowds, and was and continues to be the media's darling. He had it all going for him, but still could not nail it.

There's still plenty of election left, and plenty of time for either candidate to decisively pull ahead. The remaining Democratic contests are primaries in North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico, and caucuses in Guam. In two weeks we'll have Indiana, where Clinton is up about 2% according to's average, and North Carolina, with is large black vote, showing a huge 15% lead for Obama. If Clinton can pull off another impressive win in Indiana--where she has the key support of the highly respected Sen. Evan Bayh--her obvious momentum continues. With regard to Obama's inability to crossover, less significant will be his expected win in North Carolina. Looking down the popular vote road, according to analysis Tuesday evening from MSNBC, Clinton stands to net about 100,000 votes in Kentucky and 80,000 in Kentucky. Throw in another 300,000 when Florida is factored in. In North Carolina, rumor has it Elizabeth Edwards is going to campaign for and with Clinton. If true, who knows what effect that could have on the election. But the conventional wisdom says she'll have a net loss there of about 150,000 votes. After these contests, she'd have just about caught up to Obama. There's also the current corruption scandal in Puerto Rico involving Gov. Anibal Acevedo, a Democratic super-delegate who has pledged support to Obama. The commonwealth could see its 63 delegates go to Clinton as a result. Voters there typically follow the Governor's lead, but his indictment could change all that.

Look, if Clinton wins the nomination, she will not only capture the base--white working class women, seniors and Hispanics--but she will very likely win much of the black vote as well. They simply will not vote for the GOP's presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain. She may not get Obama's youth vote, but guess what? The youth vote never matters for anything. They never vote. Every candidate in recent memory has won without them. That leaves the affluent and educated, not exactly a huge constituency when it's time to close the curtain in November. Hillary can easily win without them. It's highly questionable whether Obama will get the white working class vote. But he cannot, and will not, win without them.

It's no longer just about "math," as the Obama camp would like to portray the race. Clinton has a very compelling narrative to offer the Super D's: she's winning. But despite the fact that a record number of voters turned out Tuesday to give Clinton a decisive 10% win, the NY Times, in it's editorial Wednesday, essentially crucified Clinton for running a "vacuous, desperate, mean, pandering" campaign. It claims she "did not get the big win in Pennsylvania." That she "squandered a 20-point lead." That her ads are "right from Karl Rove's playbook." That she "turns off voters." And that it's "time for the Super D's to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created super-delegates." The irony is that this scathing attack appears on the very same day that its lead front-page story headlines with "Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania...With Victory, She Has Rationale to Fight on." Little bit of schizophrenia going on at the Times, no?

I say to the Times, the Obama camp and anyone else who desperately continues to call for Clinton's premature exit...stop whining and start winning. Nothing shuts up an opponent like success.


Sidney Condorcet said...


Obama peaked on February 22nd, not on Super Tuesday. You don't recall the string of 11 straight Obama victories in February culminating in his Wisconsin blowout? Seriously, man, get your facts straight. We expect more from you.

This sad, sad game will go on for at least 2 more weeks, possibly six. Obama will crush her in North Carolina, and will need to beat her in Indiana as well in order to get the remaining superdelegates to declare in his favor.

The real winner last night was McCain. Plain and simple. Our party is divided. If this goes through June, I'm afraid we will lose no matter who is crowned the Democratic nominee.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ostroy,

You, like many white progressives have underestimated the anger that many black people feel. If we're going to have an honest conversation about the general election then that has to be taken into account.

I am committed to voting for the democratic nominee, no matter which candidate it is. However, maybe you should take a listen to black radio and read black media sites. There are hundreds of thousands of black people who say they will sit the election out if Hillary is the nominee. We all know that neither Clinton nor Carter won the majority of the white vote when they were elected.

The fact is that Hillary cannot win the general election without high black voter turnout. Just as Obama cannot win the general election without winning over older, working class white voters.

I think we democrats are looking at a minimum of 4 more years of republicans in the WH.

Gayle Ruffin

Anonymous said...

Failing to create momentum since February 5th? Obama has won 14 contests (including Texas since he won that delegate count and delegates select the nominee) and Clinton has won 3 since February 5.

Failing to close the deal? I think you will recall that Clinton had every advantage a year ago and has not only failed to close the deal but trails.

Popularity peaked for Obama? Hardly. He maintains a 10-point lead over Clinton nationally, which is greater than it was a few months ago, and continues to poll better against McCain.

Obama had it all going for him in Pennsylvania? Hardly. Unless you consider Ed Rendell, 100 mayors and virtually every elected Democrat in the state backing Clinton meaningless. (I note later how you mention the support of Evan Bayh as "key" to her effort in Indiana - disingenuous much?)

Regarding the youth vote not being important, you might want to ask Bill Clinton for some history on the importance of the youth vote.

Your analysis is not that of any sort of "Realisticrat", it's more death throes from the supporter of a candidate whose candidacy is fading. How sad.

The real question is, to take a cue from your masthead, will your mission remain to help the Democratic nominee regain the White House if that nominee's name is Obama?

Anonymous said...

Sad day for the Democrats. McCain won.

Neither candidate could pull this nomination off. It's a shame. I like them both and will vote for either in the election. But this negative campaign helps McCain and hurts the democrats.

I wish Obama could have finished things up. But I also wish Clinton hasn't blown the first half of the campaign and gotten herself in this mess.

Bad luck here. It's the way the cards have played out. Let's just hope McCain is so weak that the Democrat (still likely to be Obama) can win.

Gotta agree with the NYT: lose the negativity.

Anonymous said...

Sad day for Dems anon 10:41? Boy are you in denial.

Obama will not win in November and you folks who are so naive will be really bummed out. All I want to do is get a Dem win of the White House. Obama will not be the winner.

I'll explain it (again) if need be.

Anonymous said...

don't you just love it,the first three bloggers are Obama ass-kisser's.What obama fans will not bring up and speak of is the polling done during the voting which shows obama fans will still vote for hillary by almost 70%,Obama fans have pissed hillary fans off so bad 50% say they will not vote for Obama and 25% say they will vote for Mccain,the other 25% will stay home and not vote,you Obama fans have already done your damage to hillary and the party,and by Obama and his people making sure that there will not be a revote in Michigan and florida,have turned them over to Mccain in the fall.The only ad Mccain has to run in those 2 states is,Obama thinks so much of your votes,he refused to give you a say in your primary choice for president.And setting them at the convention once you people have stole the primary from hillary by not letting them vote,that bird WON'T FLY.

Anonymous said...

I'd rather be principled and called naive than unprincipled and called a "realisticrat" or "realistican".

The latter is what we Democrats rightfully decry about Republicans, their tactics and policies and we do not have to become like them to beat them.

Anonymous said...

It is sad, I agree. It's sad that Hillary doesn't realize the damage she is doing to the party. Not that the Clintons historically cared a whit about damaging the party - she single handedly empowered Republicans for years by destroying the Congressional majority, particularly in the House, which crippled her husband's Presidency and forced him to "triangulate", abandonning long standing Democratic principals (welfare "reform", NAFTA and don't ask don't tell).

This is all about HER.

Ask yourself this question - because Obama lost to Hillary in NY, CA and NJ, does that mean that McCain will carry those states in the General election? Hardly. What's more, I have a strong sense that if some of those early Super Tuesday primaries were fought again NOW, Obama's margins would be higher than they are today.

This nonsense of allowing Michigan and Florida results to stand - when history shows, as it did in PA, where a THIRTY (not twenty) point lead was sharply reduced - is just nuts. In both cases he had no chance to introduce himself directly while she had the brand loyalty created by her husband and in one case, he wasn't even on the ballot and HUGE numbers of people voted for "Brand X". You want those two states to be represented? Apportion the vote and the delegates proportionately based upon the national averages.

I continue to be offended by her playing the divisive game of stressing her gender while subtly inflaming racial distinctions, usually through her ham handed husband. These two rarely act independently, so his behavior is attributable to her and heh as been racially inflammatory since South Carolina.

Hillary put BOTH of our two candidates at risk by going extremely negative - even in PA, 2 out of 3 people who felt that the campaign was unduly negative blamed HER and voted overwhelmingly for Obama. The Clintons don't know anything BUT negative campaigning because their own negatives are so high, they need to drive the other guy's negatives up, resulting in a fight in the mud. The difference here is that unlike her husband who was a likeable rogue, she is an unlikeable bitch.

By prolonging this fight, McCain has a holiday from facing any kind of real opposition or scrutiny. And while he hasn't been raising the tons of dough that come when a race is red hot, what he raises, he essentially banks, since he doesn't have to spend it on a fight yet.

Can Obama put her away? It's a close fight, no doubt and so there continues to be hope amongst the Clintoniacs. She can raise enough money and the media has content requirements so they benefit from a continued fight and seek to continue it. Unless there's another Natalie Hollaway case, they will have dead air until the conventions and who wants that?

But the numbers continue to be against her and the only way she can defeat them is by playing cutsie games with Super Delegates as well as Florida and Michigan.

That will cement the divide that has already begun within our party - though she clearly cares little about anything but herself.

A sad day indeed.

Sidney Condorcet said...

What the hell is 10:41 in denial about 10:56? You may think Clinton can beat McCain in the general election, that's fine, debatable, but fine.

All 10:41 was saying is that last night changes nothing but prolong the inevitable. Obama will be the nominee. Clinton has no path to victory. Please, enlighten us. What's her path to victory? Convincing the superdelegates? Ha! They've grown disgusted with her Rove-like ways. She'll never win. Hillary has a ceiling of support nationally at around 45%. Her negatives with Independents have skyrocketed. She cannot win a general election against McCain. She'd lose the pacific northwest, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Colorado, etc...

Sure, Obama may lose the General Election, but he's going to be the nominee no matter what. Take the blinders off, man. So 10:41am is indeed correct. It is a "sad day for the Democrats."

Because none of the Democrats are looking particularly electable right now.

Anonymous said...

Exhibit #256,798 why it is Clinton voters who are threatening to destroy the Democratic Party.

Obama voters have apparently fradulently deprived Hillary Clinton of her "rightful" place at the head of the Democratic Party. What a crock.

She has not earned the lead in the race for the nomination by running a campaign that clearly showed her to be the choice of the Dems. Further there is no examination of "why" Clinton voters say they will not support Obama when Hillary herself has said she would support him in the election against McCain.

Just as Obama people on this site are derided as sexist and against women, does this mean Clinton supporters are racist?

I don't think so.

If you support Clinton because you think her policies are better than those of McCain, you vote for Obama against McCain. Hillary herself has said this.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 11:15 says I'm an Obama ass kisser. How silly. I'm merely bringing up an issue that has not been fully examined by the MSM or progressive bloggers. I keep reading articles asking if Obama can win over key white voter demographic groups. Those are fair questions.

What I haven't seen are articles asking if Hillary can win the black vote with the same overwhelming numbers that Carter and Bill Clinton received. It's an important question and one that has been consistently ignored.

I'm not thrilled with either candidate. I was an Edwards supporter but he dropped out of the race prior to the NY primary. I see Obama as Hillary lite. I think both candidates are seriously flawed and may have been fatally injured over the past few weeks. I do not think that America is ready for a black president or a white woman president. I hope I'm wrong.

Gayle Ruffin

Anonymous said...

Obama's spin is superficial. It is glaringly obvious to anyone that observes human behavior. His poor performance at the last debate, his refusal for FL and MI revote and reluctance to allow seating of their delegates, and now his disinterest in another debate in NC. Obama knows himeself better than his supporters know him.

I was a firm supporter of Howard Dean when he ran, but now I will say to him that he must be more proactive about counting, YES I SAID COUNTING , the FL and MI delegates as they stand and now. Otherwise Dems can kiss those states goodbye in NOV. Obama is his chosen one and it shows. I have lost respect for Dean b/c of his favoritism.

Prius said...

As 12:40 said about Dean, myself as well as Andy "were" big Dean fans, way back when. I was drawn to Andy's blog because of our support for him. Howard has shown what the very worst in a leader looks like. He is the one that has deprived those in Michigan and us here in Florida our right to vote. Sure we did vote, but he is the one that will not count our 1.7 million votes here for this race. He is the one that wants Hillary to quit so he can waltz out of this major screw up that HE has caused. Howard Dean has become a MAJOR disappointment to the party and should either be removed or resign, NOW!

I have said this countless times and sound like a broken record, but Hillary has had every media, printed, radio and TV go against her and she is still neck and neck with Obama, why? Because people are sick and tired of the media's constant negative talk and it's not working. He out spent her in PA 3 to 1 and she still won by double digits. He will win in NC because of the black vote but IN will be a different story. Hillary is the most qualified and it shows, we still don't know what the bombshell is that is waiting in Obama's background that will come out in September if he is the candidate. Think of this, Barack gets the nomination in August and right after a story comes out that blows him out of the water, something true and damaging. He IS the candidate and has to run against McBush. His own backers turn on him and his poll numbers are as low as Bush's are now. What can the party do now? NOTHING, just run and hope for the best. McBush, wins and the GOP have their "hat trick".

What should happen is the DNC, the super delegates and the candidates get together before August and work out a sure shot plan. Since Hillary has won all the big states which have the most electoral votes in November, her numbers are pretty even with Barack's and the polls tell us now that she, not he would beat McBush, the party would come to a mutual agreement. Hillary gets the nod for the president, and Barack gets the VP slot. They become the Dream Team and hit the road with unity and fire in their messages. Barack gets his chance in 4 or 8 years and the Dems win by a landslide this November. Oh, yeah, Dean looks like a miracle worker and keeps his job.

Anonymous said...

Until Hillary overtakes Obama in pledged delegates and popular vote (and I'm including Florida) she has no right to the top slot.

If anything, Hillary should gracefully accept a spot as Obama's vice president. If she cared at all about the country about the prospects of Democratic unity and winning the general election, she'd accept the VP role.

Anonymous said...

The sad reality is that a Clinton nomination will unite the opposition in a way no other Democratic candidate could, and send millions of voters to the sidelines in disgust. She is not winning and she cannot win in the general election. If she is nominated we will have another four years of Republican rule. The Democratic Party will once again have found a way to lose, against all odds.

Anonymous said...

Is Hillary Clinton an agent of the Republicans?

She's smart enough to realize that there's absolutely no chance for her to wrest the nomination from Obama.

So she's gearing up for a run in 2012 and doing everything she can to ensure that McCain wins the 2008 Presidential election.

It's simple and has been obvious since Hillary began saying that McCain was qualified to be President and Obama only had a speech in 2002.

If she can't win, then she will make damn sure no Democrat can win.

Thanks Hillary!! For giving us 4 MORE YEARS of war and Republican voodoo economics!!

Fucking enabler...I hope you get breast cancer...

Anonymous said...

From The New Republic (online):

John Judis has a provocative web article about how the Pennsylvania primary exposed Barack Obama's potential weaknesses as a general election candidate. It's defnitely worth a read. However, I'd add a couple points to balance out the gloomy picture he paints. First, you can't automatically assume that any constituency that didn't support him in the primary also won't support him in the general election. John details how Obama's share of white upscale voters diminished, and he attributes this to the Wright controversy. Maybe, or maybe those voters -- especially the women -- just preferred Hillary Clinton, but would also prefer Obama over McCain. Sure, some of the Clinton voters will go for McCain in the fall, but you can't assume all (or even very many) of them will.

John's asumption that a candidate's primary base will be the same as his general election base strikes me as seriously flawed. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, will her electoral base consist of blue-collar whites? No, it will be highly similar to Obama's, with a major reliance on minorities and white liberals. As my colleague Chris Orr has just burst into my office to point out -- don't be alarmed, he does this several times a day -- 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.

Second, while John compares Obama's coalition to the George McGovern coalition, this may not be as deadly a comparison as readers might believe. John himself is the co-author of a book which argues that the elements of the McGovern coalition have expanded to the point where they can form the base of a politial majority. On page 37 of that book, he writes (with co-author Ruy Teiziera), "Perhaps it is time to reappraise the McGovern campaign -- not as a model of how to win presidential elections, but as an election that foreshadowed a new Democratic majority in the twenty-first century."

Third, John does not address the corrollary question of Obama's electability problem: compared to what? The media has been obsessing over Obama's electability problem in a vacuum. But the Real Clear Politics poll average still has Obama performing a bit better than Clinton versus McCain -- and this is after several weeks when Obama suffered his worst two moments of the campaign, and the Republicans have been concentrating all their fire on him.

There has been obsessive media analysis of the demographic groups that support Clinton but might not vote for Obama. It's a fair point. But, given that Obama is running better than Clinton in trial heats, then the groups that would vote for Obama but not Clinton must be at least as numerous.

John writes that "the electoral premise of Obama's campaign--that he can attract middle class Republicans and Independents--is being undermined." Well, maybe, but again, if Obama is polling (slightly) better than Clinton is against McCain, then somebody out there likes him who doesn't like Clinton. Indeed, polling shows that along the general public, Clinton's unpopularity is rising faster than Obama's. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll had 44% of the public feeling favorable toward Clinton, and 54% unfavorable. Obama stands at 56/39, and McCain at 54/40.

I agree that Obama will have a tough go of it against McCain. But the Clinton campaign has been marshalling the electability argument not as a reason for Democrats to feel glum about their inevitable nominee, but as a reason for superdelegates to flock to her. Their argument doesn't work if Clinton is even weaker than he is.

--Jonathan Chait

Anonymous said...

3:36, that was totally uncalled for and I truly hope it's not your real wish for Hillary.

So, prius, because there may be some mysterious nastiness in Obama's past he should accept the second slot even though he leads in popular vote and delegates?

Can you imagine if Obama supporters made this argument against Clinton how heartily it would be laughed at by Bill and Hillary?

Gripe at Howard Dean all you like but Hillary agreed to the rules about Michigan and Florida at the time and now she's trying to game the system. It's the action of a desperate candidate, not a leader.

On September 1 of last year, the Clinton campaign released the following statement:

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

This clearly proves the Clinton campaign understood and agreed that the Michigan and Florida primaries would be null and void. And if you want Clinton's own words instead of those of her campaign, she stated the same thing to New Hampshire public radio.

Desperate times sometimes elicit desperate measures. Too bad she cannot rise above them and show real leadership.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Dean, do we all remember that his one note was he was against the war. You may now recall that Obama's one strong note that he's used from the beginning is that he was against the war therefore he has superior judgment. I guess Dean has shown how illogical the claim is that one wise decision indicates continued suprior judgment.

Not one person in these long remarks acknowledged how really damaged Obama is. He has been seriously hurt by his poor debate performce, his petulance, his vast sums of money that he can't use effectively and yes, Wright, Ayers, "bitter" and Michelle. He simply cannot win. I would never again consider voting for Dean because of his mistake, nor will I ever consider voting for Obama for the same reason(S).

And I also observe that the black population has almost to a person supported the black candidate. Had they wisely encouraged a few among them to support the white candidate it might not have appeared that as a group they are seen as racist and self-serving. A huge number of whites have supported and voted for Obama which shows farily well that white racism in not as huge a problem in this country as black racism is.

And I simply don't see how Hillary's campaign has been as negative as the charges. She didn't invent Wright, Obama's inexperience; his inferior healthcare plan and -- whatever. Nothing seems that mean.

Anonymous said...

I am so glad to finally see a Democrat who is a fighter after the long parade of one spineless Dem after another. I can't even begin to name them all since it's seemed everybody in the party was a wimp. Dukakis, Gore, Lieberman who let Cheney bash him in their vp debate; Kerry who couldn't wait to say he hadn't won in Ohio and he didn't fight Swiftboat attack; Kennedy couldn't wait to embrace Bush's terrible No Child Left Behind; Pelosi just didn't have time to impeach Bush; and countless others. THe ones I have named all support OBama -- Birds of a feather?????? I include the Congress before and after they had the majority. They are spineless. Hillary is a fighter and brings hope at last for the Democratic Party.

Anonymous said...

The sad news I heard on TV last night was that the NY Times' circulation is diminishing so that it may no longer be a "daily." They thought it was because of the Internet. I believe they no longer follow the policies that made the paper so valuable for so many years. The downslide started with the erroneous coverage and support of the Iraq war and culminating in the vicious attack and unwarranated one on Hillary. Who is running that paper now?

Anonymous said...

5:21, perhaps those who support Obama simply don't see him as "damaged". That's not too hard to understand, is it? Especially since it is not reflected in any meaningful, measurable way.

By the way, just as you are likely to think of Obama as damaged and see boogeymen around every corner with him I can promise you that there are more people who see Hillary as damaged with even more boogeymen lurking in her closet, rendering Mr. Ostroy's "realisticrat" stance delusional.

Let me ask you something, if Obama wins the nomination will you vote for him? As an Obama supporter would you expect me (as a Democrat) to vote for Hillary?

I'm hoping that the real "enemy" is Mr. McCain...

Sidney Condorcet said...

5:57pm, don't bother with 5:21pm, he's a Republican troll.

Not even a Hillary supporter would claim that blacks voting for Obama are racist for doing so.

Haven't blacks repeatedly voted for white candidates throughout the last 150 years? Blacks were taken, against their will, from their homeland and forced to toil for whites for no compensation for centuries. They were then freed and subjected to rampant discrimination, lynching, legal segregation for another 100 years. The criminal justice system has been stacked against them (crack v. powder cocaine mandatory minimums, abuse of peremptory challenges in picking juries, etc...check out Randall Kennedy's "Race, Crime & the Law")

This legacy has not completely evaporated as evidenced by the fact that roughly 8-10 percent of respondents tell pollsters they would never consider voting for ANY black candidate.

And yet this anonymous poster would have us believe that blacks are racist for finally voting for someone who looks like them and has worked on their behalf and cares about the vitality of their neighborhoods, as he's organized economically depressed communities.

Oh Lordy!! After centuries of oppression, the blacks have the temerity to vote for a defender of their interests and a person their young men can hold up as a role model! How dare they?

No liberal or moderate Democrat, even a Clinton supporter, would begrudge African Americans this vote. That is why it is so painfully obvious that 5:21pm is nothing more than a despicable, contemptuous, race-baiting Repuglican troll.

Anonymous said...

There is exactly one way that Hilary can win the nomination. She has to win 80% of the post May 6th delegates. There is no way that super-delegates will go against the popular vote and therefore throw away not only the presidential election but also any chance at holding on to congressional dominance, and various state races. On a personal level we can all understand Hilary sticking it out when she has won big states and is only 150 or so delegates behind and has put Obama on the defensive through her Rove style smears. Is it possible that some of those who would like to see this go all the way to the convention are still holding out hope that a certain great white hope will come out of the rainforest and save the day as a compromise candidate?
Check out this blog post about how there is no way Hilary will be the nominee despite Penn win:

Anonymous said...

Why can't Clinton close the deal with American voters?

She was up nearly 30 points in PA but was reduced to a 9% win.

That's extremely significant to have lost 21 points.

She's lost more states, trails in popular votes as well as pledged delegates and her campaign is drowning in debt.

The nomination was hers to lose and she lost it.

Anonymous said...

"hillary is a fighter"

ya, she fought really hard against the start of the iraq war...didnt she

oh wait...she made a cheerleading speech and voted for the president to have full war powers

she also fought hard as first lady, and that is why we now have universal health care.

oh wait...she effed that one up too

oh i see, when it comes to slinging mud and using fear tactics to scare po white folks into not voting for the big nasty black man...then hillary is a great fighter

now i get it

Anonymous said...

Jest if you will, but Obama didn't fight in the simple little debate; he won't debate Hillary again; he won't have a revote in FL; he thought Carter's trip was a good idea until everybody else disagreed. But he did show his spine when he fought hard to get Imus out of a job because Imus said some wicked things about a basketball team and Obama knew he'd probably slur American next; he voted present on three fourths of his IL. votes because he was so fearless; and, if we knew any more about him I'm sure we'e know about many other courageous fights.

Have to give it to him and Dean for oppoosing the war too. That really means a terrific ability to judge wisely.

Anonymous said...

I've been a registered democrat all my adult life. The first election I could vote in was Carter in 1976. I worked on the McGovern campaign when I was in high school. I'm sooo tired of the democrats. The primary has shown this party for what it is. I'm a Obama supporter because he's smart, articulate and might be able to lead us out of the mess we're in. If he's not the nominee for the first time in my adult life I will sit out the election, under no circumstances will I vote for Hilary. I'm also changing my party affiliation to Independent. As a black woman I'm tired of the democrats taking me and my community for granted.
I was leaning towards her at the beginning of this race but I can't take the lying, the code words and in general how she has run her campaign.
I'm originally from Western PA and while I didn't expect Obama to win I am so sad by the stupid things that have been said. We are in very sad shape as a country. In fact, I fear we are going the way of Rome.

At any rate, I survived Regan, Bush I and II. I'll survive McCain.

Anonymous said...


Your comments are why Obama supporters get a little frustrated with Clinton people. It's understandable that you are upset your candidate is losing and will not be the nominee. But continuing to lob out BS accusations as though they are true speaks to further evidence the entire Clinton campaign and her supporters suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance.

Barack Obama did not vote "present" three-fourths of the time while in the Illinois Senate. In over 4000 votes cast in the Illinois Senate, he voted present about *3%* of the time, a figure not inconsistent with other Illinois Democrats.

There was a debate set to take place in North Carolina on April 27 but Hillary bailed, per the North Carolina Democratic Party.

Lastly, one does not have to talk tough in order to be tough. What's more difficult, hitting someone or taking the abuse for the cause of right?

Hillary is a fighter of old and if you enjoy current politics and the way it's played, she's yer gal. If you want something better, he's yer man.

Lastly, the RNC and McCain have come out and condemned the North Carolina Republican Party running tasteless ads against Obama. Is Hillary going to do the same?

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry to read 141 written by a black women who will not vote for Hillary. My story, as a white soman, is much like hers I won't go into details but I too have been a Democrat all my adult life and I now will not vote for Obama, for many of the same reasons she won't vote for Hillary. There has been terrible and deliberate twisting of the facts, and the real feelings and goals which have divided us. The black people have been Democrats for years because our Party has had the same goals for all our citizens - black, other groups, and whites. Yet, now that is all destroyed. I will say that what hurt me more than anything was the revelation that so many black people hate white people. I felt betrayed and deceived all the years when I thought we were friends and had a common goal for which I too fought hard. We have been divided and I just hope we can survive McCain.

Anonymous said...

"I will say that what hurt me more than anything was the revelation that so many black people hate white people."

Pardon me 9:49 if I don't cry you a river, even if this supposition of yours were as true as you're trying to make it be. There are history books full of pictures black Americans - in chains, owned and sold, beaten, murdered, hung and burnt by white Americans. It's an incredible testament of humanity and Christ-consciousness on their part that the vast majority of black Americans have come to any kind of peace with this history and live a civil life with us as neighbors and friends.

Do some blacks really hate whites? Of course. Do some whites really hate blacks? Of course. If you're just now opening your eyes to this country and its history, then welcome to the real world and the hard work that still needs to be done.

But real hatred is in just some of our population, and a very small part of our population at that. Blacks and whites are much more UNCOMFORTABLE WITH and SCARED of each other than having any true hatred for one another.

"The black people have been Democrats for years because our Party has had the same goals for all our citizens - black, other groups, and whites. Yet, now that is all destroyed."

You obviously haven't listened to a word Obama has said if you feel this is an accurate statement. Obama has based his campaign entirely on the concept that we are the UNITED states of America, blue, red, black, white and that ALL our people are important. I strongly urge you to read the transcripts of Obama's 2004 Dem Convention speech and A More Perfect Union. This is not a man seeking to divide us.

9:49 - Obama is winning the Democratic nomination fair and square by the popular vote and delegates won. Why, as a lifelong Democrat, would you not vote for the Democratic nominee in such an important election?

Anonymous said...

How about if the writer who hoped Hillary would get breast cancer just takes his comments over to Daily Kos. They love to be misogynistic there. He will fit right in (and the sexism from the bloggers in in large part why Clinton supporters may have a really hard time voting for Obama). Yet the Obama camp lost me early on when they started accusing the Clintons of racism in every comment. Funny they were never seen as racist in their 35 years of public service. Obama's camp should just admit it was a tactic to push the black vote to break for him. But at what cost to our party?

Anonymous said...

11:13 I didn't put them in chains nor did anyone I know nor did any of my ancestors that I know of. I don't hate the Germans because of Hitler's and his government's autrocities even though I'm Jewish and I know several Germans who are still alive from those days.

I live in a community with a large black population and I thought I had friends among them. Since the Wright revelation their attitude has changed toward me and others and I see it was evidently a feigned affection on their part. Even yesterday some white friends needed help and a black "friend" in a position to help said "I'm not going to help those hypocrits." I'd never even thought in black or white terms before.

All politics is local they say. I am hurt and dismayed and I'll vote accordingly.

Anonymous said...

I don't buy your story 11:40. It may be true, but I seriously doubt it.

While you may not hate Germans, there are Jews who do. The majority of Jews? Doesn't seem like it, and that's the point I was making. Duh.

I didn't say 11:13 put blacks in chains and everyone knows it. Playing the STOOPID card doesn't help your case.

Were all whites slave owners? No. Were/are all whites KKK members? No. Has every white asked Obama to "answer for" Wright and Farrakhan? Sure seems like it. Has anyone asked Hillary to answer for the Weather Underground pardons yet? No. Get my drift? Probably not.

This whole "I'm a lifelong Democrat who won't vote for the fairly elected Dem nominee" is wearing thin and more likely just a bunch of jibbering Republican trolls trying to stir up the mud.

Anonymous said...

I just read all this crap and I'm stunned. I had no idea things were as bad as they are. Obama/Wright sure opened a can of worms. I'm not the blogger you're all attacking and I'm not Jewish but I see his point. And, he'll probbly never write again because of the hatred you people have spewed on him. You bloggers hate Jews as much as Wright hates whites. Wright didn't say that he only hates some whites - he hates whites. Period. And that the hOLOCAUST didn't last as long as slavery is ridiculous. The point I got from that man's remarks were that no one living today who is so enveloped in anger even experienced the events that have everybody so hot under the collar. No black today has been a slave in this country and no Jews have been jailed because they're Jews in Germany.


You ranters obviously should understand emotional reactions because you're all over the place spewing your own hatred and emotions.

This election like every election in the world will be based on emotions and needs. No one votes for anyone who hates them. It's that humanly simple.

Anonymous said...

Way to go 2:34. Everybody loves a strong fighter. Keep up the good work. And anybody with any sense knows wright didn't say he hates whites. He didn't say "God damn whites." He said "God damn America" That's a whole lot of difference in that. Al Sharpton pointed that out when he was defending Obamss push to get Imus out. Imus made personal remarks but Wright didnt, sharpton said. Thanks for keeping everybody on this blog thinking clear. I bet that creep doesen't have the nerve to answer you, or maybe he's seen your right. Obama will win with fighters like you in his corner and now me and my friends.

Anonymous said...

Of course, as always you're right Sidney. Thank you for helping us dummies out. And I say nevermind that the people - at least the majority- were behind every wrong decision which I think might have occurred to him while doing his damning. We don't have a dictator, don't you know.

And, of course when he was screaming about poor blacks not having the good life of the rich white people like Hillary, he wasn't really casting disperions on white people. I'm sure he must love them since he's moving into a ten million dollar house in a white neighbor. I just don't know how so many whites could have been dumb enough to think he dislikes them.

But all us dummies appreciate you pointing out the truth of what's in Wright's heart to us. Keep up the good work. And please don't go "anonymous" on me and say ugly things about me being stupid and you know - those other bad words you use.

Sidney Condorcet said...

It's about time you noticed...

I think it's funny how you take a mocking tone regarding my ability to look into his heart and see Wright doesn't hate whites, but yet you have no problem judged that he HATES white people when he's never said anything to that effect and he's done many good deeds on behalf of white as well as black people.

You're a racist, ignorant man...that's all you are...I hope that one day you see fit to become a fully legit human being who doesn't make wild, baseless assumptions about individuals and the races...

Sidney Condorcet said...

Oh, and you still have not presented the readers of this blog with a direct quote and link that backs up your claim that Reverend Wright said he "hates whites."

It's been, what, months now that you've been fanning the flames of this bullshit. Yet, still you've got nothing.

You have about as much credibility as George W. Bush.

Anonymous said...

What's happening to the NY Times?
Today Gail Collins said Hillary stole Obama's slogan "Yes we can." I watched that speech and rally on tv and they shouted as loud as they could "YES WE WILL."

How can that paper keep making such mistakes, or are they deliberate slurs?

Anonymous said...

African-American and Hillary will have support. Gayle Ruffin floats the trial ballon the ugly mouthpiece of the Obama campaign, Melissa Harris Lacewell, tried to on Charlie Rose in Feb. As a community, we'll vote for the Clintons and, most importantly, a number of us are getting tired of the nonsense that the Lacewells, the James Clyburns, the Jesse Jackson Jr.s and others have pulled. Hillary's the nominee who can win. And Jeremiah Wright's remarks DO NOT represent the Black Church. They may be cracked out of their skulls in Chicago/Haymarket Square but Black Churches in the south are pretty appalled by his damning the United States as the head of a church not to mention his crackpot science. I'm sure Melissa Harris Lacewell will think of a new talking point and Gayle will be quick to repeat it but, as my preacher said of single-parent Lacewell, that woman really needs to stop following Obama around the country and take care of her daughter.