Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Does Hillary Deserve the Nomination? It's Not the Math, Stupid

Sen. Hillary Clinton defeated Sen. Barack Obama by a landslide in Tuesday's West Virginia primary. She won by a 67%-26% margin, and picked up about 140,000 popular votes and about 20 delegates, thus narrowing Obama's lead to about 460,000 votes and 145 delegates. But let's be very clear about one critical point: no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virgina since 1916. And Clinton won the state by capturing an overwhelming majority of white, rural and working-class voters...the party's bread and butter. Tuesday's results, when combined with those of other key states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Indiana, should scare the bajesus out of any sane Democrat. The simple truth is, without the white working class vote, Obama cannot and will not win the general election against the GOP's presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain.

But that won't stop the Obama camp and its legion of supporters from continuing to point to the math to justify their candidate's claim to the nomination. The math. That collection of seemingly decisive metrics that they believe so clearly gives victory to the junior Senator from Illinois. But it's not the math, stupid. The job of super-delegates is not to merely wake up on the first day of the Denver convention, check the newspaper for the latest delegate total, and cast their vote for who's ever in the lead. If choosing the nominee were that simple, we wouldn't need super-delegates. We'd have a very clear rule that says to win the nomination a candidate needs 2209 delegates...or the most delegates by the time primaries end. But that's not the current system. Rather, super-delegates are charged with the responsibility of selecting the most electable candidate, and the math is just one element factored into the equation. As former DNC chair and Clinton Campaign head Terry McAuliffe likes to say, "It's not over until a candidate gets 2209 delegates." If that doesn't happen, all bets are off.

When pundits and the Obama supporters use the math to bolster his position, you don't hear much about the pre-March/post-March math. But take a look at these stats: since March 1st, Clinton has won 400 delegates to Obama's 392, and 5,857,517 popular votes to Obama's 5,511,513. Pretty interesting, huh? Kind of changes the whole math myth, doesn't it? Truly puts everything in perspective, especially as argued by the Clinton campaign. Should the super-delegates, as the Obamacans would like, ignore what the numbers behind the numbers indicate?

It's important to note that, with the exception of his big win in North Carolina last week, Obama's campaign has been stagnant since he racked up an impressive string of victories in February. Since then, as the above data clearly indicates, the momentum has been all Clinton's. She's won the big key blue swing states, won both the delegate count and the popular vote, and held her own with impressive gains in polls against both Obama and McCain. She's clearly come into her own voice and connected with a critical part of the party's base, and has without question run a better campaign for the past three months. It's been she, not he, who's looked, acted and sounded like a winner. It's been Clinton, not Obama, who's impressed many on both sides of the aisle with her tenacity, resilience and ability to fight.

What about Obama's impressive early wins in states like Iowa, Missouri and Minnesota...where he not only won some key swing states, but also won the white vote? Well, the key word there is early. January and February--three and four months ago--is an eternity in politics. A lot has happened since then. Obama's campaign right now is in a virtual tie with Clinton as a result of his early and decisive victories. But they occurred before the Rev. Wright implosion. Before Bittergate, and the ensuing charges of elitism. It was before the country truly got to know Obama; who he is, and what he stands for. Is it a reasonable question to ask that, if there were do-overs in those states today, would he still win, and win as big? The results of some of the more recent primaries suggests not. And let's be sure about Iowa: Obama did not win core rural white, older voters as many claim. He won, as he typically has, with a younger, more educated, affluent constituency. The typical caucus voter.

To be fair to Obama, he has aroused tremendous excitement among Democrats heretofore disinterested in politics: the young and blacks. And he also trumps Clinton when it comes to Independents. All three constituencies could come out in record numbers and be critical in Obama's attempt to perhaps win without the core white working class well as women, Hispanics, Catholics and Jews. That's the million-dollar question, and this election, like none before it, could very well be the one where the map and the Democratic base, shifts in a highly unpredictable manner. But history proves otherwise, so it's a longshot. A longshot that a Democrat can win the general election without the historic base. Without states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

So what do the next few weeks look like? Odds are, Clinton will have another resounding victory in Kentucky next week, while Obama is favored in Oregon. But, could Oregon provide an upset for Hillary? What happens if the events of the past three months give that state's voters pause, pushing them into Clinton's corner? Wouldn't that be a sure-fire sign that Obama's in deep trouble? And then there's Puerto Rico, with it's millions of voters and 55 delgates. Hillary is predicted to win handily here. That leaves Montana and South Dakota, which at this point could go either way. Come June 3rd, when the last primary is over, the delegate count and the popular vote tally could be quite different than today, and Clinton's momentum could be that much greater. She could be ahead in polls against Obama and in a head-to-head against McCain. And when Michigan and Florida are factored in, which they surely will be soon, the overall picture could change even more dramatically in Clinton's favor. At that point, her narrative to the super-delegates could be very, very compelling.

As any statistician worth his weight will tell you, numbers by themselves mean nothing. It's all in the interpretation. It's not the math, stupid.

On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. We're very pleased to announce that one of last year's grant recipients, Cynthia Wade, just won an Oscar for Best Documentary Short Subject for "Freeheld." We are proud of Cynthia and to have supported this film. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us continue to achieve our very important mission.
Thank you.


Sidney Condorcet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

how Obama fans keep quoting the rules,I think the rules should be followed to the rule,neither one can get to the number they need with out the super's according to the rules,so neither one can have the number before the convention,then the super's are to decide,and only at the convention do they count,those are the rules.the only reason obama fans want hillary out now,before the final primaries.Is it will give hillary the popular vote with out counting all of michigan and florida votes which have not been count .If they were to be,hillary already has the popular vote

Anonymous said...

If Obama has become this worn out in just the primary, how can he handle the GE, let alone the job of President? Sure he wants to be President, but she wants to do the work of the President. Big difference! We have enormous challenges and the President needs to be up to the job. Is he? When has he ever had to work really hard? What evidence do we have that he will fight to get stuff done?

Sidney Condorcet said...

Obama's going to kick her behind among whites in Oregon, my friend. Then he's going to win snow-white Montana and South Dakota. Obama certainly has a problem with poor whites in Appalachia. I concede that point. As such, he'd do best to nominate someone along the lines of Gov. Rendell of PA or Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio as his running mate.

But I warn against making the same miguided assumption that the media has been making. A candidate's base of support in a primary is not equivalent to what it will be in the general election. A large amount of Hillary's base supporters are pro-choice, loyal Dems for whom McCain is anathema. Despite what polls may say now, most will vote Obama come the fall.
When the choice is between Hillary and Obama, sure many will choose Hillary. But when the choice is between Obama and an old, warmongering, flip-flopping, pro-life Republican, the coalitions will shift considerably. Also note that even though McCain has wrapped up his nomination, 20-25% of Republicans have continued to vote against him as well. Social conservatives are slow to embrace him and Ron Paul will lead a revolt at the convention.

Also, you may want to take note of Democratic victories in the recent special elections in Illinois, Louisiana, and now freakin' Mississippi (where a Democrat has no business winning). Often times an election is decided more on historical trends/currents than on the individual candidates. The Republicans and McCain, in particular, are standing on the beach, quixotically attempting to stop a tidal waive which is hurtling toward them with alarming alacrity. The historical currents are strongly in favor of Democrats this year. While Obama may lose West Virginia this year (and Clinton could very well lose it as well...again, you can't generally extrapolate out from a primary to a general), Obama puts states in play that Hillary would lose in, such as Virginia, Iowa, likely Oregon and Washington, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. (less likely: Georgia and South Carolina)

This is going to be a Democratic year of historic proportions. The wave will sweep Obama to victory. We'll pick up a veto-proof majority in the Senate and greatly expand our majority in the House. But, of course, Democrats, with their history of losing, are slow to grasp their good fortune, and are easily consumed by minor worries.

Anonymous said...

sidney made no mention of women's positions in his comment. The vibe that I am beginning to pick up is that women are starting to stand up and a majority are standing up behind HRC. It could be that the MSN and the Obama supporters have awakened a sleeping giant which will prove disasterous in the fall elections, especially if a large number of women write in HRC.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Umm, yeah, unlike 11:13am, I believe that Democratic women are intelligent enough to abstain from writing in HRC, which would have the effect of throwing the election to a pro-life, anti-woman, warmonger, who would win by a plurality.

But alas, 11:13am, has a "vibe"...

Anonymous said...

I agree with 11:54.

The fight is with McCain. It is not between Obama and Clinton.

They must run together if we expect to win in November.

Anonymous said...

Hillary is a fighter that has one heck of a political machine.

Obama has tons of young naive people who are ready to fight.

Let them run together. It's the only way we will win.

Anonymous said...

There are plenty of candidates that appeal to Hillary's core voters, who would be better VP candidates than Hillary.

Hillary would be a disaster as VP. She would energize the currently moribund Republican base, and her unfavorables among independents would drag the entire ticket down among that supremely important swath of the electorate. If Hillary is the VP, guaranteed the Dems lose. The Clinton pardons would come up, Bill's work for shady characters post-election would be dredged up, Hillary's summer internship with the nation's leading Communist law firm would rear its ugly head. Obama clearly has enough baggage (Rev. Wright, etc.) and doesn't need the Clintons' myriad scandals to destroy his chances at winning moderates and independents.

Sorry, it's a terrible idea.

Anonymous said...

Ostroy is right. Some on this blog don't get it. Obama is over - as indicated by the vote in WV and the exit polls which indicated 38 percent won't vote for Obama. As for the Congressional wins in LA and MS. Easy to explain that thinking: have a Democrat-majority Congress which can better control McCain; vote for McCain now and a Dem in four years. Until then Congress could control McCain.

Obama is not acceptable to a large number because of Wright and the bitter remarks. It is essential to notice, as Ostroy has pointed out, that Obama's lead was before Wright and "bitter." He has declined as a vaiable candidate since then and will not win.

Few want an Obama or Clinton ticket because many do not want to vote for Obama under any circumstances. He would still be president -- that's the problem. And even if he were vp, he would still be a possible president with all his baggage.

Anonymous said...

Andy - First of all, they always KNEW that she was gonna' win WV big. It's NOT news. When Obama slammed her in Mississippi (54% to 38%), the news people were like "well, he won big, but that was expected." And that's ALL they said about it! So why is this big news? Because this keeps it going, it keeps the cable news ratings up and, I'm afraid to say it, pure racism. Sorry, it's just true. In fact, the reason she won is because of racism in that state. If you've been there you'd know that.

But aside from all that here are the reasons she does NOT deserve the presidency.

1 - She fights dirty. For the first time we have a chance of getting someone in the whitehouse who REALLY wants to change the style of politics. In fact, I really believe that he wants to help educate the electorate. Call that elite if you want, but I'm all for it.

2 - She panders. Iraq vote, Gas Tax Holiday, getting soft on woman's rights, etc. There's no end to it. Winning is more important to her than helping people. I don't want that in my President.

3. Botox. Have you seen shots of her from a year ago? I just hate that stuff. (I know this isn't rational, but it DOES speak to her narccisism.)

Bottom line is that it DOES matter how you win. I think Obama is going to totally kick McCain's ass. And in a way that simply cannot be explained away with old fashion politics. He's a paradigm change agent. We should see that and help it grow. Hillary is in the way. She's got to get out. Period.

PS - I say no to the dual ticket. Too much blood. Richardson should be the veep for Obama.

Anonymous said...

There is only one problem. The spineless Democrats exist among the super delegates and they will be too frightened of the threat I heard on TV News was issued by Al Sharpton. It was reported that he threatened to have a huge protest movement should Obama be denied the candidacy by the Dem. Party.

Most Democrats are not fighters. That's why Hillary is doing so well -- at least someone with a backbone. But that may not help her in the case of the delegate's fear. Even "pundits" are saying that the Democratic Party would rather lose to McCain than enrage the black consituency. That was declared on MSNBC.

Anonymous said...

Hey kids! Don't forget the "legal lynching" of Obama by the MSM. Looping someone else's comments (provided by Clinton supporters from months of video) and blaming Obama for it. Smart young & White people see through this. Obama has run a principled, smart campaign of inclusion, not pandering, fearmongering, etc.. Ask yourselves, who benefits by keeping us all divided? Wake up!!

Anonymous said...


1. Yes, the blacks were racists in their "block" vote in MS and the other heavily populated black states.

2. Obama panders. The lastest is his so pathetlically obvious wearing of an American flag pin That's just his latest -- no time for his other "panders."

3. Are you a sexist? And I pray your looks are better than your thinking. You've got to have something going for you. BTW Obama could use an "ear tuck." And, many people improve their looks, education, etc. because they want to feel better about themselves - not because they're narcissists.

You're right. She should not share the ticket with Obama. That Richardson should never be considered as vp or for any other position. And don't you worry about being called an elitist.

Anonymous said...

12:37 You and the Obama supporters continue to divide by making every criricism of him a racial slur or a "Lynching'> The blacks and Obama supporters have worked very hard to divide us, including Wright. Hillary merely quoted the polls when she said "white voters" and she was "lynched" by the press and TV. Yet "black voters" is used all the time and no one screams "racism."

I think the damage that has been done runs deep. And it's been from the Obama camp starting with Michelle.

Anonymous said...

12:37 This is 12:22 again. Did I say that botox is bad because she's a WOMAN!!! I hated it when Kerry did it too. I just think injecting yourself with bacteria is not smart. No matter what the reason.

And yes, I'm good looking. I'm a freakin' super model as far as you're concerned. Okay!!! ;)

Anonymous said...

The math? I prefer to think that Obama will win because of the democracy. When a majority of people vote for a candidate, that candidate wins. "The math" is just one way of saying that when someone counts all the votes Obama's greater number of votes indicates a democratic victory. If superdelagates hand Hilary the victory, an unlikely scenario, they would be overturning democracy. I like the Democratic party, but I like democracy more.

Anonymous said...


I appreciate your consistency in believing your prefered candidate is the superior candidate. Frankly, I expect no less from any supporter of any candidate. But your "new math" argument is specious as all get out.

If three months is an eternity in politics, why then are you bringing up historical record from 1916? This is not logically consistent and cherry-picking to fit a narrative.

If you want to look at another simple truth in contrast to the Bubba vote not currently going Obama's way, Senator Clinton could not win a national election without the support of African-Americans. The fact of the matter is that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (twice) won without the Bubba vote. So, again, Rahm Emmanuel is right - how the loser of this nomination fight loses will go a long way in determining if the winner will win in November.

If statisticians are asked to interpret numbers, they do so. But they also understand rules and probability. The rules and all probability point to Obama being the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Deny it all you want, and I certainly understand why you'd want to, but it's really that simple.

The Ostroy Report said...

Oelberg, please take a deep breath and try to hear what I'm saying. I know you are in love with Obama, and that's seriously clouding your judgement, but again, please try for second to comprehend what I'm about to say...yet again:

The current Democratic Party system is NOT based on "majority rule." Do you understand that? It's based on a rule which requires a MINIMUM number of delegates (2209 incl Fl and MI) to win the nomination. There's nothing "Democracy" related here. It's the Party's own rule. And when that MINIMUM is not reached, the system of super-delegates kicks in to adress this very specific conundrum. The Party , when it implemented this system 25 years ago, did not say to the super-delegates, "if neither candidate reaches the 2209 level, the simply award the nomination to whomever's in the lead." The super-D's are supposed to factor in other elements critical to their decision, such as momentum, swing states and overall electibility. There's no decision to be "overturned" because no one has yet to "win." They can only "win" at that point with the help of the super D's. You realy need to understand how the system works. Currently, your reasoning and your logic is terribly misguided.

Anonymous said...


By what metric do you determine that Hillary Clinton wins the overall electability argument? What is it that you see the career politicians (aka Super Ds) apparently are not seeing as they head toward Obama at a pace of 12-1 over the past 4 days, at least 9 Clinton Super Ds defecting to Obama and a pace of 3-1 going Obama's way since the end of January?

Anonymous said...

"[N]umbers by themselves mean nothing. It's all in the interpretation."

Interpretation is just "spin" with a fancy name. What's funny is how Ostroy intones "It's not the math stupid" and then spends the first half of his post "interpreting" Clinton's numbers. Classic.

Missing from this thread is the discussion of the 7% who voted Edwards, ditching both the woman and the black guy. Interpret that. Ah yes, Michael just has with his name-check on the Bubba vote.

Also missing is
- the fact that Obama was raking in more superdelegates than Clinton today as the dust of WV settles
- the interpretation of the steady tide of superdelegates to Obama (including several FROM Clinton) since March 1st -- a date Ostroy seems to think is important date yet doesn't explain why

What's most stunning is the absolute lack of gratitude shown by Clinton and Clinton faithful like Ostroy towards Obama for actively choosing to not run a campaign against Clinton like the one she has run against Obama.

Obama has not campaigned with constant refrains about how men will not vote for a woman. When Clinton was trying to skewer Obama on Ayers, he could have reminded the public that her husband pardoned 2 Weather Underground criminals - but he didn't. He could have brought up Marc Rich every time the name Rezko was uttered. Obama could have agressively pushed Clinton's and Rendell's ties to and praises of Rev. Wright and Farrahkan - but he hasn't.

Obama has tried valiantly to "keep it to the issues" only to have Clinton drag him back into the mud every time, with the giddy help of the MSM and Limbaugh minions. Ostroy just posted an exhaustive missive about the horrible cable news "circus". I guess his cold medicine has run out because here is Ostroy creating his own circus by attempting to cast manufactured crises like "Bittergate" and Wright as things "the country is learning about Obama". If anything, what the country is learning about Obama is that he is absolutely unflappable and resolute. Instead of running away from controversies (q.v. Clinton calling Bosniagate a case of mere sleep deprivation while still claiming readiness to handle major crises at 3am), he faces them head-on with eloquence and poise - the way a real leader and statesman does.

Which is why superdelegates continue to flood to him.

Anonymous said...

i supported john edwards,but after he dropped out...i started supporting's my take on this whole thing.....a lot of people are AFRAID that obama will make a HELL OF A PRESIDENT and they don't want him to have that chance....hilliary is also a great candidate,but over and over during this primary season the media has thrown her lifeline after lifeline,to keep her in the race...she cried in new hampshire,then then nafta in ohio...then all of a sudden the rev wright scandal and the bitter now they are saying he can't get the white vote in november,ETC WE ALL KNOW WHY...THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO BE PRESIDENT,BECAUSE HE JOLTS THE DEMOCRATS AND THE GOP

Anonymous said...

Interesting news just out...

NARAL just endorsed Senator Obama.

Anonymous said...

In just reading the narrative about WV in the news today, there are many citations of how "race" is playing in the election, exit polls, etc.

I mentioned this issue in my post above, but now that I really think about it, I don't ever recall seeing any exit poll questions that have asked about voting for a woman. If this question has been asked, it certainly hasn't been reported.

If we're wanting to make prejudices into defining "electability" factors for this general election, then we best be sure we're fully parsing every prejudice, right?

Anonymous said...

Interesting news just out...

NARAL just endorsed Senator Obama.

Very interesting news.

"I believe Sen. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. He leads in pledged delegates, superdelegates, the popular vote, and cash-on-hand. As a former elected official, I know that having the three "m's" of a campaign - money, message and manpower (or womanpower!) - are how we win elections. Sen. Obama will be our next president."
- Nancy Keenan, President, NARAL

Anonymous said...

Obama, Hillary, McCain does it really matter? Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.

Anonymous said...

Dear Andy,
Thanks for some hard cold facts and some important questions.

Just a reminder for some of you: this is a race between two politicians, not between a moral saint and a politician, or between a moral saint and a monster. Each is a crafty savvy clever politician. So please don't be so naive as to think that one intends to reform the entire system so that there will never be big bad politicians again in Washington DC. That's nonsense!

Anonymous said...


It's my experience, as an Obama supporter, that it is some Clinton supporting folk who like to paint this nomination fight as between someone who is a carnival barker selling snake oil (or messianic fraud) and a seasoned fighter for the average American.

Most Obama people I know are well aware of the fact that he's not Jesus Christ. But what he does represent to us is a fresh approach to campaigning and governing. Will he solve all of America's ills? In a word, no.

We're not delusional.

Anonymous said...


Your bias bleeds through every post you make.

Shameful if you ask me. If Obama gets the nod, given your strong views, I fully expect you to keep logical consistency and stand on the sidelines. After all, he's no good, he's winning based upon bad math and he's not the right man for the job.

But more than that - you sound just like the Clintons and it's a shame you can't hear yourself. Anything to win - that's what they will do, and that's what you will say.

Does it mean nothing to you that these people are not worthy? That all they care about is themselves? That there is no ideological value or any value system that matters to them beyond their own ambition?

Shame on you Andy.

Anonymous said...

Hey 4:07 - I agree with almost everything you said, but let's lighten up on the "Shame On You" stuff. Andy's a good guy, even though he's wrong. Let's not get into name calling. Okay?

Anonymous said...

"Most Obama people I know are well aware of the fact that he's not Jesus Christ. "

Obama himself knows this, quite regularly referring to himself as "an imperfect vessel" that cannot solve all the ills that face America and the world. What he also regularly (and quite correctly) intones is that it is ultimately up to all of us to demand and create solutions to the problems we see.

There are people who call Obama a saint or a messiah, but those people are never him or his supporters.

Anonymous said...

I do not think any of you people are following the news. By the time The Rev. Manning story is told no one in their right mind is going to vote for Obama. The Rev. has proof that Obama is a closet homosexual and the Rev. Wright was his lover also a murder of a gay choir director in Wrights church is also connected to Obama. Give up your dreams he is toast.

Anonymous said...

I just read all these entires and was impressed with all the ardent Obama supporters coming to his defense. Then I saw there are only a few: Sidney, his sound-alike Michael, Bkln and an Anon. or two, who write in over and over and over and over again. There are very few Obama supporters here, but a few who seem desperate that their Obama will lose. And they're right. He will lose either the primary or the general.

They all seem to be rather slow learners, too. Since the point is Obama has lost steadily and seriously since the Wright and "bitter" episodes. He will not win against McCain. And, as one Obabamanite pointed out Hillary can't win without the black vote, Obama can't win without the woman vote. Women have had it with this entire process from the bashing by the media to the desertion of the entire black race. They will not vote for Obama.

Edwards is now another who has infuriated them. He started bashing her when he sided with Obama during the early debates; and, today, after her overwhelming victory he has to take the spotlight. I'm glad his political career is over after his vp failure and this contest.

Women will not vote for Obama and he can't win without their vote. They're used to waiting and they're used to "enduring". They'll endure McCain and put Hillary into office in 2012.

And to the idiot who praises Obama for being a gentleman. I don't call his little sarcastic digs gentlemanly, but I agree he's not much of a fighter. He's more cat that lion.

Anonymous said...

One would think NARAL would have been smart enough to go with the woman candidate rather than the male who wants to reach across the ailse to the Repbulcians and be everybody's friend. What has he got to lose if he sides with them on abortions? Is that one of the changes we can look forward to? In fact, since he doesn't have the Democratic base, I wonder what comprimises and "reaching out"s he has in mind to make us one, big, happy populace.

Anonymous said...

OMG --Years ago when she was very young Hillary was an intern in a law firm some think poorly of. That's terrible., but Obama, could belong to a church for twenty years that preached the damnation of our country and that's is of no consequence. What can be behind this kind of thinking.

Anonymous said...

Anon6:38pm - those of us who support Obama are not the desperate ones in this primary contest. We are quite confident he will win the nomination and the general election.

We post frequently because we're often fighting fact-challenged logic that is constantly repeated by the endless stream of anonymous postings. It's possible there's even fewer Clinton supporters than Obama supporters here - you can't tell because they all post anonymously. Could be the same lone person posting over and over and over again. And obviously not all of the professed Clinton supporters are being honest - I don't believe the hordes of "lifelong Democrats" who keep saying they'll vote McCain. Trolls, all of them.

I'm guessing the reason there are few Obama supporters who post here is because if you take a long hard look at Ostroy posts and comments over the last few months you will find that this is extremely hostile territory, populated with right-wing trolls and Clintonites with a vicious chip on their shoulder. Trying to thoughtfully engage people here is a lot of work.

Regarding "bashing" by the media or Edwards or anyone else, don't forget that it was Hillary who co-opted the phrase "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". She's invited heat on herself.

We're not slow learners. We just refuse to be bullied away with spin and hyperbole. Your suggestion that women as a whole won't vote for Obama is ludicrous. The suggestion that Obama will abandon women's choice is laughable. And both are exceedingly desperate comments.

Again - Obama supporters don't feel any degree of desperation. We're confident and with very good reason. We have an extraordinary candidate and a mandate for real change stirring in the electorate. It will be hard work, but we will win in November. I sincerely hope you join the effort to secure a Democratic victory in November.

Anonymous said...

Interesting information from Quinnipiac today:

Both Obama and Clinton defeat McCain in their latest polling (Obama by 7, Clinton by 5). What is most interesting is the following:

Among white voters John McCain beats Barack Obama by 7%
Among white voters John McCain beats Hillary Clinton by 7%

It's freaking IDENTICAL!

Anonymous said...

Bkln, One third of all the comments on this blog are by you, Michael and Sidney. And, I believe you're all the same person -- Sidney as he was before he cloned himself. At one time he seemed to be the only one who spent night and day reading and responding on this blog. Now there are three with so much time. How "elite."

That sounds like desperation to me.

I agree with the poster who pointed out the excessive comments by you three or one. And, some of the anons sound like you three/one, too. No problem -- Ostroy doesn't mind, but it does discourage the more serious from participating.

Anonymous said...

The sad reality is that HRC will unite the OPPOSITION as no other candidate could, and once again the Democrats will have found a way to lose the general election. I have five children of voting age. They are excited about the presidential race for the first time in their lives (all are of voting age). One by one they have expressed to me how upset they are by Mrs Clinton's Rove-like behavior. Three will not vote for her if she becomes the nominee. She has also lost my vote, and I am a working, hard working white man. Perhaps I am just too well educated.

Anonymous said...

I have really been critical of Obama for listening to and remaining a member of the church run by Wright. Now I see that I am guilty of the same thing. I have been a Dem all my life and I continue to stay with a party that has so many despicable people in powerful positions. The one who mmediately comes to mind is John Edwards and I shudder to think he was my first choice in this campaign. The way he has acted by announcing his endorsement for Obama today, deliberately stealing the news space from Hillary is treacherous. Before him was another loser crawling to Obama hoping for a place that now may go to Edwards and that of course is Richardson. And there's Dean. I'm so sorry to remember that I didn't see through him and was a strong supporter of him. I am so disappointed in them and wonder how I could have been so dumb. The list of course is long: Pelosi has failed miserably in her position; Ted Kennedy couldn't wait to hug and agree with Bush and the Pope (on illegal immigration); almost the entire group of male Dem-leaderss who have proven to be sexists; the black Dems who have proven to be racists; Begala who has joined Soros to use dirty tricks to determine the outcome (or so it's been reported); and the list goes on. The only two I continue to like or respect are the Clintons. The Party will suffer in this coming election because of the lack of principle and character. Lord knows what will happen to "we the little people" and our country.

Anonymous said...

Anon10:30pm - the only thing I am desperate for is an end to Republican rule in the White House this November. So I decide to wade into Clintonite territory to try to engage other alleged Democrats about the general election and to call out bad information, liars and those who seek to undermine the Dem Party (see Anon10:47pm - an obvious Limbaugh-inspired troll claiming to be originally an Edwards supporter who suddenly "sees the light" and realizes that ALL Dems INCLUDING EDWARDS are HORRIBLE..... except the Clintons. Yeah, RIGHT).

Anyone who cowers away from participating here because of my "excessive" comments must really have nothing of value to say. That's their own fault, not mine or Sidney's or Michael's. "Discouraged" people are most definitely NOT "the more serious".

And trying to make "elite" a bad word is only going to backfire on you. Hillary is nothing if not elite, as is McCain and his filthy rich wife. You really need to wake up and realize that EVERYONE in government is "elite" to a very large extent, which should really not be considered a bad thing to have in a person who regularly negotiates with heads of state and has their finger on the biggest nuclear trigger in the world.

Anonymous said...


" ... to have a person who regularly negotiates with heads of state and has HIS finger on the ..."

Anonymous said...

??? "HIS" ???

Anonymous said...


I am flattered you may think I am Sidney Condorcet as his writing is some of the cleanest and thoughtful of all who respond to Andy's blogging. However, I am not Sidney. My name is Michael and I live in Texas with my wife and two sons. I am a proud Democrat who used to work for the Clintons but now actively supports Barack Obama and was an elected delegate to my Senate District convention (District 25, BTW).

Anonymous said...

Your math is different from mine.

And that of the rest of the world.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and as used in the present political context about Senator Obama, "elite" is clearly a euphamism for "uppity"

Anonymous said...

Even hillary's campaign staffers acknowledge