Why Did Clinton Lose? In a Word, Iraq

207 thoughts on “Why Did Clinton Lose? In a Word, Iraq”

1. Because she’d already been vetted… And not enough Democrats had reason this time around to pretend she’d passed the vetting process.
   Fortunately for an interesting fall, Obama hasn’t been yet. But that’s good, you always learn more from making new mistakes than old ones.

2. Clinton’s new strategy: drop out of the race on Monday. Be “surprised” at still winning WV on Tuesday by a double digit margin. Re-enter the race on Wednesday as “Comeback: Episode III”
   Then drag the race to the convention on a combination of “Obama couldn’t close the deal, even when I stepped out of the race/whitey votes for me!”

3. publius: this is stellar.

4. Very well said. More generous to her than I feel like being, but that’s a good thing.
   Now it’s up to Obama to win, because if he does your New Progressivism and the fifty state strategy will prevail as the new conventional wisdoms of the party. On the other hand if he loses…
   YOur essay raises has an intersting question: given HRC’s obvious committment to the convventional unwisdoms of the past, why so much support from people who were progressives and critics of the party leadership over those very unwisdoms prior to her candidacty? I think the answer is female identity politics.
   I also think that HRC could have successfully stimied Obama and reinstituted the old guard thinking if she had just run a better campaign. it turns out that she is not a good manager and that she is hamhanded, clueless, treats the voters and the press as if they are too stupid to see through spin and consistantly makes decsions that sacrifice long term benefits for shortterm goals. In other words, she wasn’t fully vetted–I think that most Deomcrats had no idea that she would turn out to be an inept compaigner.

5. I was generally OK with HRC as a canidate right up until she started in with arguments that just insulted my intellegence, I’ve had enough of that the last 8 years.
   It started with her pretending that the FL and MI primaies should count, despite the agreement reached prior to the votes in those states. It was such a transparent about face. Then there was the, um, unique experience of being called an elitist by the wife of the guy who lived in the White House for 8 years and has made $100M since.
   I came around to Obama because he seemed like the only one who was willing to have an adult conversation with voters – not treat them as a bunch of rubes easily distracted by black preachers, arugula and meaningless gas tax policies.

6. Why did Clinton fail?
   Two words:
   Mark Penn.

7. Clinton is the candidate of the DLC, also known as “the Republican wing of the Democratic party”. Their motto seems to be “we’re just like Republicans, only better”. That’s a loser of an attitude if there ever was one.
   Clinton also had the big name, big bucks consultants who engineered the Democratic Party’s successes from 1994 to 2004 [/sarcasm]. When Clinton is out of the race, they’ll scurry over to Obama; I hope he tells them to take a flying leap.

8. I honestly don’t think Clinton failed, as much as Obama just won. Sure, we can look into problems in her campaign now. We can talk about disarray, confusion, but we would not be talking about those things if her toughest opponent had been John Edwards.
   Nine out of ten election cycles, she would have been the nominee. She just happened to run the same year as someone who is truly gifted politically in that once-in-a-generation kind of way.

9. I guess everyone has a different pander that drove him/her away from HRC.
   Mine, oddly enough, was her support for the flag-burning constitutional amendment. Given her background, I simply could not believe that she honestly believed that the Constitution needing amending to allow States to prohibit flag-burning.
   After listening to conservatives talk and blog about her (yes, I have conservative friends — I work in Orange County, CA), what I find so astonishing about her senatorial career and run for President is just how tone-deaf her panders were. She seemed to select precisely the issues designed both to aggravate her liberal base and NOT to persuade the people she was reaching out to of her hawkishness / political centering.
   Weird.

10. Publius:
    That is a very cogent analysis. But it ignores one simple fact that was why, in my opinion, that Hillary was never going to be the nominee or President: the high negative rating she held when entered the race that never substantially dropped.
    When Hillary declared as a nominee for the presidency, she was–as you point out–extraordinarily well known. And she possessed a 45 – 48% negative rating. This doomed her candidacy from the beginning. Had she been able to lower her negative number, she might have had a chance but because she was so well known, and because her behavior as a candidate is consistent with the prior behavior that (rightly or wrongly) causes half of the country to dislike or despise her, there was a substantial opening for another candidate to sweep the rug right out from under her.
    I, too, would have supported Hillary if she was the nominee because she would be a vast improvement over McCain but I am very happy that we have an outstanding alternative to her candidacy.

11. “Then there was the, um, unique experience of being called an elitist by the wife of the guy who lived in the White House for 8 years and has made $100M since.”
    It is worse. $100 million last year.

12. It is worse. $100 million last year.
    Um, no, $20 million last year.
    Still, at half a million a pop, it would only take Bill 22 speeches to earn back the $11 million hillary loaned to the campaing. I bet he could do it in a month.

13. I think this is a good explanation of a very complex process–its not that “the war” or “her war vote” mattered to *everyone* –clearly it didn’t–but it hamstrung her efforts to seize a major portion of new voters, angry voters, change voters. And that fed into many of her later missteps, the kind that turned of people who started out by thinking they would vote for her (for lots of different reasons). The harder she tried to get traction with the electorate over and against Obama the more mistakes she made on a number of fronts each of them alienating key parts of the generic voter herd. People who didn’t like the race baiting? people who didn’t like the tax pandering? people who didnt like the anti elitist talk? people who didn’t like the dissing of small states? people who didn’t like the whining about caucuses? people who didn’t like the strong arming of superdelegates. The list goes on and on. But she never would have had to start scraping the bottom of the barrel of campaign activities and strategies of she hadn’t have a) voted for the war, b) refused to repudiate it and c) refused to associate with the DFH’s (imaginary and real) who oppose it now. She would have had other battles to fight, but I think she could have overcome them.
    aimai

14. That said, she is a committed progressive
    Prove it. What has she done in the past few years that makes her sooooo progressive. By her deeds shall ye know her — I know her as anything but “progressive”. (I’d say she should be committed, but that might be construed as an attack on women.)

15. Beyond Iraq, it was the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act and others. For fear of not seeming hawkish enough, she caved in on torture, extraordinary rendition, denial of habeas corpus and domestic spying. The flag-burning stance was a vacuous pander, as are her censor-Hollywood, video games and music BS. Hillary simply failed to stand up for what I thought were her values.

16. She calculated that general election viability required her to be a macho, macho-hawk.
    This is a side point, but how do we know that macho macho hawkishness isn’t just what she believes in? I mean, is there any evidence that the hawkishness was pandering? Couldn’t we assume instead that the later talk about Iraq withdrawal was pandering?
    There are a lot of people in this country who think that the guiding principle of American foreign policy should be a willingness to use our military to blow up people thousands of miles away at the drop of a hat. I think they’re wrong, but they definitely exist. I think one can make case that Bill Clinton was among them. And I think there’s a case that Hillary was as well.
    Maybe Clinton really does have no core beliefs whatsoever and really has adopted every single one of her policy positions as part of a calculated plan. But maybe she just likes the idea of sending the air force to bomb people.

17. Iraq may have predisposed Hillary to failure, but the turning point itself was: her failure to specifically define the role that Bill would occupy.
    After New Hampshire, Bill emerged, rampant in red faced, potato nosed glory, and he dominated the press and the debate in all the ways that frustrated/entertained us all last winter. His presence, undefined, served only to reawaken all of the negative memories that even the most ardent Clinton supporters harbor from the 90’s.
    It would have been manageable, if at the outset, everyone had been alerted and understood, that Bill, lovable truant Bill, would continue to be Hillary’s life partner, but that he would hold no formal role in her Administration, and that whatever he said – if understandable given their 40 year relationship, was attributable to him, I think Hillary could have gotten those last couple of steps and strangled Barack in his crib.
    The sight of Bill, over and over again, stepping in do-do, though, without a clearly defined role, was enough of a hiccup to bring her down in the end. (There was a cartoon in February, in the Onion I think, where Bill says ‘ef-it, I am running for President myself’.

18. at the risk of sounding ridiculously New Age-y, i think we are at a moment where history turns.
    Obama’s acceptance of the Dem nomination will be on 8/28, 45 years to the day MLK gave his “I Have a Dream” speech. i dunno, that gives me goosebumps.
    and i think this is all too high-minded and fantastic for a hard-nosed grind-em-down “fighter” like Hillary. she thinks there’s SOMETHING she can do to turn it all around, but she can’t. it’s beyond her control.
    she, like Obama, are being moved by the current of events, and the only choice she has in front of her is how ugly her reputation will be based on how much she stands in the way.
    i’ve never really believed in Fate or anything like that, but i’m starting to feel differently now…

19. She lost me completely in 2005 when she co-sponsored legislation outlawing flag-burning. I’ve never even been tempted to burn a flag, but that move was blatant pandering. It made me suspicious of everything she’d done up to that point. It robbed me of confidence in whatever she’d do thereafter.

20. “Obama promises a brighter future.”
    Yes he does. Two comments:
    1. Clinton hasn’t lost yet.
    2. Obama doesn’t have the strength to make good on his promises. Ironically, I think that Hillary might be strong enough to pull the US out of Iraq. The exit of the United States from Iraq would move Obama from theory to practice. He isn’t strong enough to accept accountability for the images that would emerge. Watcbing your orders as President result in genocide and images of children being killed is a lot different than organizing communities. The imagery would be awful.

21. I must agree with Jeff’s 1:41 post and GreenDreams as well.
    How is Hillary progressive? Maybe when she’s speaking out one side of her mouth to get elected she seems progressive.
    Her actions and votes are anything but.

22. ARA:
    You are right: Clinton was/is a victim of the Obama phenomenon.
    (Yeah, that’s right — for the smart asses in the audience — I just played the Victim Card.)
    :):):)
    UGH:
    You probably misspoke. But if not, get your facts straight: Bill and Hill made $110 million over nine years (not in one). Senator Clinton recently released her tax returns — remember?
    And that still wasn’t good enough for the Obamabots and the MSM.
    As far as loaning her own campaign $10.5 million of her own money, why would anyone — Democrat, Republican, Obamabot or Orville Redenbacher — be upset about that?

23. Actually I think I was the one who misspoke. 🙂

24. BTFB – you’re confusing me with someone else.

25. He isn’t strong enough to accept accountability for the images that would emerge. Watcbing your orders as President result in genocide and images of children being killed is a lot different than organizing communities. The imagery would be awful.
    thanks god that’s not a problem for the current occupant of the white house.

26. I never much like Hillary. This wasn’t a problem: I normally don’t “like” politicians much. But back in the 90s, she always seemed to be both involved in a lot of the minor semi-scandals, often in the role of The Enforcer, which she seemed to take to to an extent I didn’t particularly like; and to have a tin political ear, and not to have any of Bill’s more engaging qualities. She was generally said, by people who met her, to be wonderful one on one, but, eh.
    I also thought she got a very bad rap on other counts — e.g., I could never see why people assumed she stayed with Bill out of ambition — can’t two complicated people possibly be in love? I don’t see why not — etc. But the fact that she got a bad rap didn’t mean I had to like her more generally, or so it seemed to me.
    That said, when this all started, I thought: OK, she’s smart, hardworking, and apparently knows her policy stuff; we could do a lot worse.
    Watching her attempt Nixon’s Southern Strategy has not been particularly edifying, imho. I agree with publius, though, that in a different era, she would now be the nominee.
    One more reason why I like the netroots. 😉

27. I think that a lot of us — or at least me — heard echos of the claim that people who opposed the war were “unserious” every time she argued that her early support for the war, and Obama’s early opposition, was irrelevant. Maybe if we hadn’t been so consistently dismissed for the last five years we wouldn’t have minded her early support as much.

28. And BOB:
    “He isn’t strong enough to accept accountability for the images that would emerge. ”
    Do you have any evidence of this? The way he just dissolved in tears under the strain of the Jeremiah Wright stuff? The way Clinton was able to throw him off balance with her attacks time and time again? The way he has consistently folded under pressure? Or what?

29. This is a side point, but how do we know that macho macho hawkishness isn’t just what she believes in? I mean, is there any evidence that the hawkishness was pandering? Couldn’t we assume instead that the later talk about Iraq withdrawal was pandering?
    The assumption is that she valued getting elected more than staying true to her core beliefs, even if those core beliefs included hawkishness. I still don’t understand how she made such a big miscalculation, though. I mean, if I were her, I would have worried much more about winning the nomination than about winning the general election. The Iraq war was obviously a big deal to the democratic base. We she didn’t strongly repudiate the war vote, and show regret and contrition is beyond me.

30. One additional Iraq connection: her complete detachment from reality, much like the current occupant. Her campaign has been doomed for months, but certainly doomed now especially after Indiana/NC. And yet she continues – “full speed ahead” – completely unaware (or, more likely, blatantly disregarding) the facts on the ground. We’ve seen the consequences of such decision-making. No thank you.
    (Additional related point: Much has been made about Obama supporters being a “cult” and treating Obama as “the Messiah”. It’s worth noting that Clinton’s only argument for staying in the race is that, despite the results of the entire primary process in favor of Obama, SHE IS THE ONLY ONE that can save us all from McCain in November. What is more cult-like or Messianic than that?)

31. Contentless italics banisher

32. Bill, your comment might be totally hilarious if:
    1. We didn’t watch another Clinton sitting in the Whitehouse during the Rwandan genocide doing absolutely nothing and suffering zero consequences, and
    2. We didn’t watch the current President suffer zero consequences when half a million plus Iraqis were killed
    Look, Americans don’t really care much about furners in far off lands dying. They certainly don’t care enough to extract a political price when their own government is complicit in genocide (see Timor, East). Everyone here is enough of a grown up that we can move past fairy tales where Americans are united in their belief in the shared humanity of all people.

33. I don’t think she has ever given me a reason to vote for her.

34. Aren’t you forgetting when it looked like Senator Obama could win, he started receiving something like 95% of the black vote. If Senator Obama was white and had the same views on Iraq, Senator Clinton would be the nominee.

35. This is a great piece and I agree with most of it. But the one thing I’d critique is that while all these reasons contributed to losing progressives, progressives weren’t the only, or I’d argue even the primary, reason she lost. African-Americans were. (I think you tried to avert this question by pointing to the increased importanc eof the progressive movement–its “rise”–but to me this still doesn’t account for it).
    It was losing both parts of Obama’s eventual coalition–progressives and African-Americans, each for different reasons–that she lost. Now, in my opinion, she’d have lost the latter even if none of the controversies came up. It was not her supposed race-baiting that did her in with blacks–it was her lack of respect for Obama and near-total dismissiveness of the possibility that he was a legitimate candidate and not an accident of historical forces working against her.
    What I would say tied both reasons–Iraq and this disparagement of Obama–together, is, in a word, arrogance. Refusing to apologize for her vote and refusing to recognize her opponent (or any of his victories) stem from a arrogance and stubborness that, fittingly, is a real disqualifier for the office–not a mere distraction from her qualifications.
    She lost because she failed the commander-in-chief test of temperament and the wilingness to listen and reconsider.

36. publius,
    Very good analysis. I like the way that it highlights the way that Hillary’s campaign was hamstrung by a misfit between conventional political tactics and the very specific and historically contingent aspects of this year’s contest. Along those same lines, I think the unprecedented levels of Democratic turnout (especially in the early contests) played havoc with the accuracy of the polls, creating another source of weakness for a conventional poll-driven campaign in competition with a grass-roots movement style campaign.
    One thing I think you overlooked was that thanks to the crimes and follies of the Bush administration and the failure of the GOP candidates (except for Ron Paul) to run against Bush’s record, in this year’s contest we had a larger than usual body of independent voters and disaffected Republicans who were willing to look at a Democratic candidate with fresh eyes and either reregister as Dems or vote in open primaries for a Dem.
    One element of Obama’s success was that given a more ideologically diverse voter base (compared with past progressive insurgencies) he was able to run both to the left and to the right of Hillary on different issues, so she was not able to shift the contest in either direction on issues without leaving him room to expand his coalition into the space vacated by her movement. If he had run as a purely progressive candidate from the start, she could have moved to the left to poach from his base and box him in, and then tacked back to the middle in the general election (c.f. Mondale in 1984). That option wasn’t open to her because he also possessed a center-right voter base which would have expanded if she had moved left on issues.
    This may explain why the contest devolved into an exercise in tribalism and identity politics as strongly as it did, because fighting it out on issues was a sure way for Hillary to lose. Usually the progressive candidate is the one who gets boxed in on issues, but this time it was the establishment candidate who found themselves stuck in that trap

37. It pains me to say it, but Iraq is single-handedly responsible for the progressive revival that America seems to be experiencing.
    yup.
    for me, 9/11 was the spark, but Iraq was the acres of dry timber.
    9/11, and the govt’s response, was the single reason i started paying serious attention to, and picking sides in, politics. before that, i was just an Election Day Dem. after, i was plenty interested, but, my interest was still confined to 9/11-related issues.
    once war in Iraq started up as a topic, that changed. my deep opposition to the war, crashing up against the constant and wide-ranging demagoguery over Iraq from Bush, Fox, the warbloggers and all the rest, fanned that little spark. and now i spend so much time on political blogs, i’m sometimes amazed i still have a job.
    and, like you say: Clinton put herself on the wrong side of Iraq, for a lot of people. and that puts her on the wrong side of basically the core reason why i pay attention to politics.
    her loss. (hopefully)

38. Your analysis really rings true to me Publius. I think that a logical extension of it is the unfortunate way that race has played out in the later stages of the campaign. People are always, to some extent, prisoners of their background. In the time and place where the Clintons developed their political skills, the idea that a black man could win a majority-white constituency was laughable. And I think she still believes it to be impossible, much as she adopted right-wing concepts like flag-burning bills as necessary gestures.
    It’s really looked to me, for quite a while, that both Clintons have been sending up signal flares and shouting “America will never elect a black president! There are too many racists!” Except that they can’t quite find the right words to say it.
    I also have absolutely, positively, no doubt that they have had pollsters tell them that there is still a significant group of racist whites in the Democratic party, and even suggesting coded ways to reach them. When you’re desperate, you reach for what you can. And that desperation is a mix of personal ambition and a real fear for the party and nation in the fall. I think it’s a misplaced fear, but it is a real one nonetheless. This interpretation, I think, explains the peculiar and tortured dance that both Bill and Hillary have been doing in the past few months. It’s like watching a Greek tragedy.

39. In short, Clinton didn’t realize that a new alternative base of support would exist in terms of money, votes, and activism. She thought she only had to nail down establishment support to win. That said, I don’t really blame her for this assumption — the progressive revival is an exciting development that would have been hard to predict in 2002, that winter of liberals’ discontent.
    No, but it should have been easier to see after the 2004 primary. Sure, Dean lost, but he changed the game, and those who didn’t see what was coming next lost out. Obama inherited much of that, and Edwards tried to–he was just the wrong person at the wrong time.
    This really has been a battle of old vs. new–even down to the demographic groups that each candidate appeals to. Forget the working class numbers–Clinton appeals to people over 65. That’s where her wins have been coming from.

40. I think DrDave at 1:19 yesterday has it right. Clinton lost (if she did) because she started out crippled. Not mostly her fault IMO, but she was successfully demonized for 15 years. She did a pretty good job of rebranding herself, enough to get more supporters than I expected, but a) a lot of people got interested in Obama primarily (no pun intended) because he was the front-running Not Clinton candidate, and b) she never cut into her negatives enough to convince superdelegates she was electable.
    Let’s bear in mind that her much-more charismatic and qualified husband, running as an incumbent who had done a pretty good job, barely squeaked out a second-term victory, with a lot of help from a third-party candidate. Clinton’s much-touted appeal to blue-collar voters never amounted to much among the swing-state independents. That fact leaves superdelegates hoping very hard for a viable alternative.
    The real question has always been, is Obama a viable alternative? Clinton would have lost sooner against any other candidate. For all the talk about how Obama would never have won without the black vote in Southern primaries, it is equally true that if Obama had not been in the race, his votes would have gone mostly to Edwards, and the superdelegates would have had zero hesitation in pronouncing Edwards electable — because he isn’t black.

41. ditto what cleek said.
    Fortunately, I am self-employed.
    Great post, though the number one reason why she lost was that the Obama campaign was that good.

42. “(See, e.g., Karen Tumulty).”
    Perhaps you meant to this?
    “It pains me to say it, but Iraq is single-handedly responsible for the progressive revival that America seems to be experiencing.”
    If you wrote “largely,” I’d agree with you. “single-handedly” seems quite plainly wrong to me, however. There’d be no “progressive revival” without all the history of progressivism’s movements behind it, and there are hundreds of threads that contribute. Absent innumerable progressive/left organizations and efforts and movements and invidivual evolutions, of the past twenty years, and more, there’s be no “progressive revival” just because we had a war, I think. Afghanistan didn’t, by way of counter-example, lead to a “progressive revival” in the Soviet Union, did it? Would you argue that all that is required to cause progressive movement is a war and only a war, as you are arguing here?
    If so, why?
    “In essence, the New Progressivism created a structural alternative to obtaining power through traditional establishment means.”
    Yes, but did the war do that single-handedly, in a vacuum, and would it have happened if there were no pre-existing sentiments and movements in the country prior to 2002? Really?
    Dept. of mixed metaphors: “If Iraq put the heat-seeking missile in the water…” it would sputter out.

    Why did Clinton fail?
    Two words:
    Mark Penn.

    If only the czar knew!

    I guess everyone has a different pander that drove him/her away from HRC.
    Mine, oddly enough, was her support for the flag-burning constitutional amendment.

    I started with the attack on free speech because it’s just video gamers, and they don’t vote, in 2005, myself. She threw my vote, and the notion that she supported free speech, away then. I only was willing to vote for her after that as a last resort.
    She wasn’t the last resort.
    “‘I have developed legislation that will empower parents by making sure their kids cant walk into a store and buy a [book] that has graphic, violent and pornographic content,’ said Clinton, a possible 2008 presidential candidate.”
    That’s a deal-breaker for me. Speech is speech is speech. And a pander that gives away free speech, because it’s only comics/rock-and-roll/videogames/movies/content/whatever the content, is a pander I could never live with.

43. A couple of things…
    First a nitpick:

    If Iraq put the heat-seeking missile in the water, then Clinton’s instinctual defensiveness gave it a high-profile target.

    You put heat-seeking missile’s in the air, not water 🙂
    And more substantively:

    We watched on with growing anger as Democrats publicly supported a policy they privately opposed simply to reinforce a Reagan/hawk narrative that progressives were increasingly rejecting.

    Year after year the Democrats in Congress play along with Bush on the war in Iraq. I think that it’s questionable under those circumstances to assume even a majority of Democrats actually oppose the war.

44. Can I just confirm that I haven’t missed anything and that, as of this time, Clinton hasn’t officially lost the primary?

45. Can I just confirm that I haven’t missed anything and that, as of this time, Clinton hasn’t officially lost the primary?
    Anarch – it’s like that scene in Wag the Dog where the opposition candidate declares the fake war over and automatically Robert DeNiro as the President’s spin-meister goes “Oh no, the war’s over.” And then Dustin Hoffman’s character goes, “what? wait, how can the war be over, it’s not even a real war?”*
    It doesn’t matter what reality is, just people’s perception of reality. But yes, you’re right, it isn’t actually over, and when Clinton wins WV by 25-30 points (or more) it will all shift to “In a remarkable turnaround, Hillary Clinton, whose candidacy was declared all but over by pundits everywhere after primaries in North Carolina and Indiana last week, has stunned Barack Obama by an unprecedented 35 points in the West Virginia primary, breathing new life into a campaign that had been left for dead** less than a week ago.” Blah blah blah, for another week, at least.
    *actual dialogue may, and probably does, differ from that portrayed here.
    **oops, I did it again.

46. When people complain about your metaphors, Ugh, you should just tell them to get off their high horses.

47. Irony of ironies that I should be the one to rise to Sen. Clinton’s defense against GreenDreams’ false accusation: She did not vote for the Military Commissions Act.
    Her floor speech in favor of the amendment to restore habeas corpus protections to the bill (the amendment failed narrowly) was one of the best of that day, and one of her best ever.
    That speech was shoulders above Sen. Obama’s, which was solely a pragmatic case for how preserving habeas helps us in the effort to prevent terror attacks. Perfectly appropriate among the array of strong arguments being made, but not exactly inspiring — and something well short of the moral argument I expected from the candidate who lectured other Democrats about openly having religious faith inform their policy views.
    Every Senate Democrat but one (Nelson of NE) voted for the habeas-preserving amendment. Sens. Clinton and Obama voted against the final MCA bill. Shamefully, twelve Democratic Senators voted to erode the most fundamental of our legal protections, and to retroactively legalize torture and other criminal acts of the Bush administration. Sen. Clinton was not among them.

48. publius’ analysis is insightful, but not relevant. Every factor publius mentions could be true and every other thing that happened in the campaign could have happened the exact same way and Hillary could have stil taken the nomination if she’d had ANY plan or made ANY effort to contest that string of post-Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses. Event if Obama still won them all, if she could have just chipped away at his margin of victory (55% to 45% instead of 65-35 and more), Obama would never have built up a significant delegate lead. And without that lead, Hillary’s institutional support would likely have been enough to carry her over the finish line.
    Mike

49. In other odd metaphors, Tumulty: “Obama, on the other hand, was a train running hard on two or three tracks.”
    That doesn’t sound as if it would work well. Anyone ever see a train do that? I think it’s called “derailment” when a train leaps off one track, and it’s not usually desirable. A train running on two or three tracks at once wouldn’t seem to be an actual possibility, let alone desirable.
    If only magazines, unlike blogs, had editors to catch weird metaphor choices like that.
    Anarch: “Can I just confirm that I haven’t missed anything and that, as of this time, Clinton hasn’t officially lost the primary?”
    Which primary? There are eight left. (Plus some later caucus stages to produce final national delegates in some caucus states.)
    She’ll likely win Kentucky and West Virginia, if she’s still running.

50. “Can I just confirm that I haven’t missed anything and that, as of this time, Clinton hasn’t officially lost the primary?”
    With 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter of game 4 of the playoff series against the Lakers, the Denver Nuggets hadn’t “officialy” lost either. Theoretically, something could have happened in that last 5 minutes to kill or physically disable enough Laker players so they would have to forfeit the series to Denver.
    Mike

51. At this point, since primaries will be completed by the beginning of June, I hope she stays in thru then.
    First, I know I got a thrill casting a primary vote that actually had a chance of mattering. Every Democrat should have that chance.
    Second, people are turning out for primaries in record numbers. Obama seems particularly well positioned to get those primary votes to the polls in November.
    Third, the ongoing primary keeps giving Obama lessons in how to respond to mistakes and attacks. He hones his skills with each response.
    Fourth, it keeps McCain off the air except for his gaffes. By contrast, Obama gets lots of free positive air time, including (on NPR) long segments of his speeches. I get re-energized every time I hear him speak.

52. Can I just confirm that I haven’t missed anything and that, as of this time, Clinton hasn’t officially lost the primary?
    Anarch,
    FWIW, I see the HRC campaign as currently in the same position as the German Army on the Western Front in June 1918. They haven’t lost yet, but there is no longer any plausible path leading to ultimate victory for their side.

53. Hillary should print “It’s only a flesh wound!” signs for her next rally.

54. Nun shall pass!

55. A bit off-topic, but I’m hoping that Clinton’s shenanigans cost her big time in the long-run. It would do my heart good to have the net-roots and the blogosphere find a progressive woman to challenge her for her Senate seat when it comes up again (2010?). With no seat of power, she vanish from the political stage, of as much signifigance as Dukakis.
    =====================
    As far as loaning her own campaign $10.5 million of her own money, why would anyone — Democrat, Republican, Obamabot or Orville Redenbacher — be upset about that?
    What’s the collateral? What happens if she defaults? I’m somewhat opposed to candidates giving themselves money (although, ideally, they should only be able to give what any other person can). But loaning your campaign money is so ethically-challenged (a phrase we hear about the Clinton campaign a lot, isn’t it?) that it should be illegal.

56. “I could no sooner turn my back on Reverend Wright…”
    Don’t get me wrong, we should leave the streets of Iraq. A strategic retreat to a remote airbase in the desert would be an appropriate strategy. The water in Iraq would find it’s own level and we could deal with the emergent Iraqi leadership, one way or another. The Middle Eastern process of water finding its own level, starting out from scratch, is very ugly though. In this era of instant images being telecast to all corners of the world from cell-phones, it would be even uglier.
    The Obama who could not turn his back on his Reverend ended up turning his back on his Reverend when the Reverend accused Obama of playing politics. Reportedly after taking a poll.
    That same Obama is on record refusing to commit to a complete Iraq pull-out by the end of his first term. I He could not handle the imagery that would result from a US withdrawal because his orders would be directly responsible for the carnage.
    Carnage on your watch is harder to stomach than a political accusation in a primary. Especially when you order it as President. Obama does not have the strength to order it.
    Just a prediction.

57. She lost Bill. Let go.

58. The Obama who could not turn his back on his Reverend ended up turning his back on his Reverend when the Reverend accused Obama of playing politics.
    when a friend turns out not to be the person you thought he was, it’s quite acceptable to change your mind about him.
    are you really complaining that Obama changed his mind about someone who turned on him ??

59. No Cleek; just a little concerned that it took Obama twenty years and one month to figure Wright out; it took most of the rest of us about one month. Judgment is an important quality for a President.
    More appropriate to my premise is the example of how quickly Obama folded in the face of resistance.

60. Carnage on your watch is harder to stomach than a political accusation in a primary. Especially when you order it as President. Obama does not have the strength to order it.
    Thank god the current occupant of the white house had the stomach to order carnage. and not only order it, but relish and revel in it. Feels good!

61. publius, your post pretty much encapsulates all of the reasons I wasn’t for Clinton. There’s one thought that didn’t get mentioned, the issue of dynasties. If she ran and won, the last 20 years would be Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton, and that’s way too much like a monarchy for my tastes. And we’ve seen how well electing somebody based on their last name works out.

62. Brick Oven Bill,
    You could argue that it’s because we didn’t have the twenty years that we were able to figure it out in a month.

63. “When people complain about your metaphors, Ugh, you should just tell them to get off their high horses.”
    I think there’s a joke I’m not getting there: what’s this mean, he wondered curiously?

64. I agree that Iraq did her in. It gave Obama enough space to gain momentum with those who were truly disillusioned with Iraq, and Congress’s role in enabling it. It is fully to his credit that he took advantage of it.
    It pains me still to see how many women, in particular, are willing to justify Clinton’s acquiescence in the AUMF and associated authoritarian measures, on her need to prove her toughness in order to run for presidency. For Clinton, apparently, a progressive society begins and ends with whether the person in the top spot (her) has progressive ideals, and isn’t the sum of all the steps along the way that add to or detract from what constitutes an open and progressive society, including, most importantly, not resorting to secret tribunals, torture and other monstrous positions in the pursuit of national security.
    But I doubt if I am alone in realizing that progressive domestic policies are difficult if not impossible to achieve so long as our national self image, is bound up with aggressive foreign intervention and the need to spend disproportionate resources on it. The policies that Clinton pursued along the way to promising progressive deliverance have made it that much more difficult to achieve. In the long run, a more progressive society might be more open to female presidents without requiring that they be even more hawkish than their male counterparts, because hawkishness will not be viewed as a paramount virtue.

65. just a little concerned that it took Obama twenty years and one month to figure Wright out
    seems pretty presumptuous to claim to know the intricacies of the relationship between a man you don’t know and his church which you’ve never been to.
    any chance you don’t actually know much at all about that relationship, and you’re just interpreting what you think you know in a way that suits a narrative which pleases you ? any chance at all ?

66. I think Mike Bunge has a fair point. I mentioned in another thread that I thought one big problem for the Democrats has been poor organization. That was true of the Clinton campaign.
    While publius’ points are insightful, I agree with Mike that a well-planned, well-run campaign would have made Clinton a winner, New Progressivism aside. The simple realization that it was not going to be a walkover would have helped her a lot.

67. I think there’s a joke I’m not getting there: what’s this mean, he wondered curiously?
    It’s a reference to my Eight Belles comment in a previous thread (I presume).

68. Jeff:
    What’s the collateral? What happens if she defaults?
    It’s just a financial transaction. If they give the money, they cannot use future fundraising to repay themselves. It is very common for pols with personal wealth to loan it to their own campaign for this reason. If they go bust in their political career, then their loan is never repaid. It becomes identical to giving it.

69. “It’s a reference to my Eight Belles comment in a previous thread (I presume).”
    I kinda figured, but don’t quite get what the joke is in you using a horse metaphor, and the suggestion that you use a horse metaphor. I’m not following what the actual joke is in “you should just tell them to get off their high horses.”
    Haha, use that metaphor again?
    No matter; I confuse easily sometimes, and I frequently think things are funny that other folks don’t, in turn. Humor is damned subjective. Thanks.

70. UGH FROM 2:16 —
    If I previously confused you for someone else, I apologize. I’ve only been blogging for a week now and doing this while at work is an invitation for confusion.
    Loved your response to Anarch (3:26) — The MSM is indeed Wagging the Dog right now: Perception trumps reality.
    However, like Anarch, this Clinton supporter is aslo frustrated. After all, what really changed on Tuesday? Obama won North Carolina, as expected, and Clinton won Indiana, as expected.
    Bottom line: He still hasn’t won a blue-collar, swing state and she can’t win a state w/ a large African-American population.
    What’s changed?

71. publius: this is stellar.
    Indeed. I think this may be Publius’ best post in my short history here.
    And hey, even the often-abrasive contrarians have moderated their comments(!)
    LeftTurn, good to see you. I was wondering only yesterday about your absence.
    More maybe later…Anyway, good thread.

72. To clarify: I know that Clinton has an essentially non-existent chance of winning the nomination. The reason I asked is because I didn’t know whether Clinton had formally withdrawn from the race because, if not (as seems to be the case), I’d say that publius is being… a touch premature in some of his phrasing — with Ugh’s scenario at 3:33pm being almost exactly my prediction of what’s going to happen.
    [FTR: this prediction also makes me very, very sad.]

73. What’s changed?
    Apologies for sports metaphor, but there is a difference between being two touchdowns down at the end of the first half and being two touchdowns at the 2 minute warning.

74. BTFB: What’s changed?
    It’s really more of the same. She didn’t “win” IN, she tied. She lost NC pretty badly. There’s no way for her to win, short of superdelegate collusion.
    Obama gave her an opening for a graceful exit, with his speech in NC, calling for everyone to work for the nominee (easy for him to say, sure, but he didn’t have to mention it) and complimenting Clinton several times. But, no; she’s still got to whine about MI and FL when everyone has said those are dead, dead, dead.
    What will it take to get her out of the race?

75. Bottom line: He still hasn’t won a blue-collar, swing state and she can’t win a state w/ a large African-American population.
    Assuming these things are true, why would they matter? Do you believe that performance in the primary tells us how candidates will perform in the general against McCain? I mean, if Clinton gets the nomination, do you really think African Americans will refuse to vote for her or will vote for McCain instead?

76. bedtimeforbonzo, I’m also a Clinton supporter and I think the issue is exactly that nothing’s changed, and consequently that Obama has this thing pretty much locked down.
    I should add that even though I would have preferred to see Hillary Clinton get the nomination I’m looking forward to voting for Barack Obama and I think he’ll be a good president. What I don’t understand is why people who ostensibly support Obama aren’t trying to get him elected. Attacks on Clinton and attacks on Clinton supporters don’t seem all that likely to me to help build enthusiasm for Obama among those who currently support Clinton. What’s the thinking behind that, exactly?

77. Bedtime:
    How do you spell M-I-S-S-O-U-R-I?
    How do you spell I-O-W-A?

78. “He still hasn’t won a blue-collar, swing state”
    You’re asserting Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming, Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, Maine and Wisconsin, don’t count, along with having the majority of pledged delegates, and about to have a majority of superdelegates, having today tied in superdelegates?
    Why?
    Indeed, it’s been practically impossible for Clinton to win the nomination, absent Obama being killed, for many weeks. What’s changed, indeed?

79. I mean, if Clinton gets the nomination, do you really think African Americans will refuse to vote for her or will vote for McCain instead?
    If you’d asked me that a week ago, I’d have said no. After the USA Today interview, I do believe many would let stay home or write in Obama’s name.

80. “She didn’t ‘win’ IN, she tied.”
    Yeah, she did. She won 644,594 votes, 51% percent of the vote, and most importantly, 38 delegates, while Obama won 630,399 votes, 49% of the vote, and 27 delegates.
    I’m not a math whiz, but while it’s certainly fair to say that it was a reasonably close election, “tie” has a specific meaning, and 38 to 27 is not a tie in any base ten arithmetic I’m familiar with.
    If it had been a Senate race, there wouldn’t be a recount, or a run-off. One person won, and it was Senator Clinton. That’s by law. It’s not a matter of subjective opinion.

81. What I don’t understand is why people who ostensibly support Obama aren’t trying to get him elected. Attacks on Clinton and attacks on Clinton supporters don’t seem all that likely to me to help build enthusiasm for Obama among those who currently support Clinton.
    Who are these mysterious “people” that “support Obama” but “aren’t trying to get him elected”? Can you name some names? And can you explain what they’ve done that constitutes an attack on Clinton or Clinton supporters? Because that sounds very serious indeed. If you know something about attacks on Clinton, please explain so that I can contact the Secret Service.
    What’s the thinking behind that, exactly?
    Who are you addressing this question to? Me? publius? God? I can’t really speak on behalf of this unnamed group of people that you’re so worried about. Since I have no idea who you’re talking about, I can’t even speculate on their motivations.

82. Gary, it’s not 38 to 27. It’s 38 to 34 (on demconwatch.)
    The split was 50.4% to 49.6%.

83. The only thing that got Hillary into serious contention was the undue deference that is paid (in both parties) to “heirs apparent”, even if their inheritance is a poisoned one. The true measure of Obama’s strength is his ability — if only by a hairsbreadth — to overcome that built-in advantage.
    But if the word was “Iraq”, the name was “Bill”. Love him or hate him, eight years were enough. (Of course eight years of Bush have been eight too many.)

84. “The split was 50.4% to 49.6%.” — Chester
    So that’s a tie, then?
    Obamath, right?

85. “Gary, it’s not 38 to 27. It’s 38 to 34 (on demconwatch.)”
    My link seems to have fallen out. It was to here, and I goofed it, anyway, as it says 623,294 and 36/32. I accidentally looked at the numbers for — oops — McCain, not Obama.
    Delegate numbers can be a bit tricky for a bit. MS-NBC claims it’s 38/34, for example. The WaPo currently calls it at 41/38. Etc.
    No one reports equal numbers, however, for Clinton and Obama in Indiana, whether in delegates or popular vote.

86. “The split was 50.4% to 49.6%.” — Chester
    So that’s a tie, then?
    Obamath, right?

    That’s an interesting technique: hallucinating responses, and then replying to them. Enjoy debating straw people often?

87. She got my attention with her position on landmines. So much for all that Children’s Defense Fund nonsense.

88. Excellent analysis.
    Obama’s win can be attributed to one simple thing: he raised more money. This is a very well-thought out essay on why that happened and why Clinton wasn’t able to siphon off enough from Obama’s pool of donors to get the win.
    I think that in the long run the fact that Obama was able to pump money out of so many people does speak well for his future as the President. In terms of the campaign, it is true that the candidates’ interest is pretty mercenary, but I think it carries over into their voting patterns.
    You can explain many of Clinton’s “bad” votes in terms of “Well, X will vote for me (and contribute money) if I vote this way, but Y won’t vote for me anyway if I don’t. So X it is.” Obama likely thinks the exact same way, but sees the overall state of the country better. In a sense, he panders just as much as Clinton, but has a better sense of how something that plays well in one state might hurt him in another.

89. She didn’t win by enough of a margin to change the dynamics of the race Gary, which I think is the implied intent.

90. I think it’s probable that much of the money raised via the net for Obama came from people who were bothered by Clinton’s Iraq vote and her subsequent “explanations” for it.
    And don’t pull me into the “Indiana tie” discussion, I was only trying to correct the numbers.

91. Good post.
    I think there is one element of Hillary’s Iraq problem that bears remembering; the was for the war.
    And I don’t just mean she voted for the AUMF. She was a clear and convincing advocate for it. Others, like Kerry and Edwards, fell in line, but Hillary was there whipping them.
    “I remember what it was like to be at the other end of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and I wish my husband had that executive power sometimes.” Yeah, thanks a lot, Hillary.
    I don’t think her long silence on the war and her refusal to say she made a mistake to vote for it were the consequence of political calculation, so much as an indication of her right-of-center foreign policy.

92. Somewhat O/T;
    I believe that Iraq is all about the oil and we should just admit it like we did in the First Gulf War. Paul Chefurka has authored a series of eye-opening papers about Peak Oil. His work seems to be independent scholarship and is excellent. He comes to some disturbing conclusions about energy and the future. Highly recommended reading:
    http://www.paulchefurka.ca/

93. Always fun to see BOB come up with statements for which he has nothing to base the statement on, i.e the 20 year statement. Oh well.
    publius, although I agree that her Iraq vote was a hindrance, I don’t think it was the fatal blow. However, it was, in a way, tied into something you missed, which did hurt her, despite the media basically giving her a pass on it after 2-3 days.
    Because of her vote on Iraq, she had to work to create an picture of her that would pass muster regarding foreign relations. She overreached, with her stories about Ireland, Bhutto, and most of all Bosnia. This undercut her “trust me, I have the experience” push.
    After 8 years of a President who you couldn’t trust, this, IMO, created a major problem for her.
    Again not fatal however.
    Obama ran a textbook campaign, whereas she ran a textbook campaign if you were running against no major threat. Consider all the advantages she had: major name recognition, major financial backing, a surrogate who just happens to be one of the most popular former Presidents in the last half century, the backing of the Democratic machine in most major states, a front loaded primary season which couldn’t have been better positioned for her.
    In fact, if many of the states that voted on Super Tuesday voted on a staggered basis, she wouldn’t even be as almost close as she is right now.
    The final thing that lost this for her was the race baiting that took place. Sure it may have won her some white votes, but she blew any chance she had (which initially was considerable) to at least average 25% of the AA vote.

94. What I don’t understand is why people who ostensibly support Obama aren’t trying to get him elected.
    aside from donating a bunch of money, spreading the good word among friends and family, and ya know voting for him… what else is an Obama supporter supposed to do ?
    should i have gone over to Talk Left or H44 and engage the friendly persuadables in reasonable conversation ? any chance i could’ve convinced the people who say he’s a radical-muslimAmerica-hatingBlack-powerCommunistRepublican-litePanderingElection-stealingMisogynistElitist that no, really, they should put all their fncked-up whack-job mouth-foaming lunatic conspiracy theories aside and vote for the guy, cause i said so?

95. Further to the IN tally, whatever the necessarily official count and thus delegates, the Children of Limbaugh are likely to have supplied the difference (admitting that it’s a known unknown, and guesses run both ways).
    Upthread I said ‘maybe more’.
    One of the elements I wanted to deal with has been given some leverage by a link at bhtv.
    Herewith a compressed quote (re Hillary):
    “‘she paid no heed to those who contradicted her, because in her mind, she was telling the truth. Only when confronted with undeniable evidence of external reality — actual footage from her Bosnia trip – did she admit (possibly to herself as well as the public) that her version of events was not true.
    It also explains Hillary’s reaction when exposed. She was angry because she was forced to abandon her psychic reality for external reality.For her, this was tantamount to giving up the truth in exchange for mere facts. …. [snip]
    While most of her explanations have made no sense, when Hillary told Leno that she’d had “a lapse”, she was right on. She’d had an actual lapse in mental functioning.’
    To me, Hillary’s Bosnia exaggeration doesn’t seem that bizarre–just a particularly egregious and risky version of the sort of resume-brighteners even candidates who served in the military sometimes tell. I’d be tempted to dismiss Ladowsky’s argument if it didn’t resonate with other bits of data in Hillary’s biography: a) Her marriage! Did she stay wedded to a notorious philanderer by insulating herself within a “psychic reality”–a reality only disrupted by “undeniable evidence” in the form of Monica Lewinsky’s dress? I remember during the early days of the Lewinsky scandal when Hillary’s aides said she didn’t read the papers. That would be one way to stay in a comfortable “psychic” cocoon. Another way would be to surround yourself with ultraloyal aides. (Hello, Sid!); b) Her refusal to face the legislative failure of her health care plan in 1994 until it was too late; and c) Her failure to take the Obama threat to her candidacy seriously enough (including, maybe soon, a refusal to admit that it’s too late for her to win the nomination). …” (From kausfiles.)
    Okay, I know kaus is properly not held in high esteem by some of the most estimable commenters here.
    The single quotes designate a cite from a piece at HuffPo here by Ellen Ladowsky, to whose idea I was referring a week or so ago; except granting need to refer to her piece for the background his point is concise.
    To the degree we are confined to speculation, surmise, and logic, it all sounds too damnably familiar. And I say Dubya Begone, and that includes surrogates of whatever party. Didn’t read the papers? Been there. Enough with pretend ‘realities’ defining deliberations in the Oval Office.
    Please, never no more.
    I feel I have a clue to her base’s loyalty and vice versa. But maybe more later as occasion and opportunity dictate.

96. I don’t engage with Mr Farber. It’s probably more my loss than his, but I just don’t see much point.
    I will say that to some 51% to 49% is a “mandate”, not a tie. They seem to be using Republican math, not statistics.
    ————
    I saw in Yahoo News, from the AP:

    In an interview with National Public Radio, former candidate John Edwards said Clinton has made a compelling case for her candidacy, but “I think it’s very hard for her now to make a compelling case for the math. I mean, I think that’s the reality of what she’s faced with. She knows that. … It’s just very hard to see how the math works.”

    So he’s not endorsing Obama because… His voice would speak louder than any other (save possibly Gore). It makes him look like a weasel, but there may be some good reason he’s waiting…

97. Ugh wrote: “Still, at half a million a pop, it would only take Bill 22 speeches to earn back the $11 million hillary loaned to the campaing. I bet he could do it in a month.”
    Ya know, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bill’s income over the last 8 years was predicated in some part on the assumption that Hillary would be President in the future, and fat honoraria a way to curry favor.
    If that’s on the table, he’s no longer an ex-President married to a future President, and his ability to command huge speaking fees is likely to fall.

98. Anarch wrote: “Can I just confirm that I haven’t missed anything and that, as of this time, Clinton hasn’t officially lost the primary?”
    Are you expecting Ron Paul to win the GOP nomination? He’s still officially in, and campaigning.
    I think we can all admit that there’s no way Ron Paul is going to snatch the nomination away from McCain, even though there are several primaries left.
    Clinton won some states, and has far more delegates than Paul ever won, but a win for her is about as improbable.

99. BOB wrote: “No Cleek; just a little concerned that it took Obama twenty years and one month to figure Wright out”
    Maybe he did figure him out, and weighted Wright’s various opinions each according to their merits, without slavishly following the man. Maybe he attended the church because of the community of his fellow parishoners, rather than just because of Wright? Maybe he didn’t flee the church because, like, they’re just ideas. Oh NOES! Ideas!
    And anyway, since when is it the job of a religious leader to pander to the nationalistic illusions of the public? Shouldn’t such people be the professional hair shirts of the nation? Shouldn’t such people feel like failures if, once in a while, their flock doesn’t leave the church feeling disturbed and thoughtful about what they’ve heard?
    Should a priest in Germany in the 30s have said “God Damn Deutschland!” or should he have ignored the faults in German policy, preaching ‘Gott Mit Uns’?
    Apparently, he should have ignored the faults. That is your opinion, correct?
    I mean, WTF? Railing against sin is part of the job description. That includes national sins.

100. Give some thought to Hillary’s background. She and Bill were DLC Democrats; they triangulated; they moved center; they won the Whitehouse. Their reward: Eight years of unrelieved venom from the Limbaugh-ites, denunciation as wild-eyed left wing radicals, endless investigations, an impeachment, and even the “Clinton Body Count.” And that was how the Right reacted to the moderate wing of the Democratic Party! Now she sees a representative of the liberal wing poised to win the nomination.
     If I wanted to be charitable to her, I would say that her fears about “electability” are genuine, that she sees the Democratic Party about to drive off a left-wing cliff and is desparately trying to save them from themselves.
     A somewhat less charitable but thoroughtly human interpretation is that after spending a career trying to make the Democratic Party more acceptable by moving center and triangulating, the prospect of Obama winning by taking the opposite approach seems like an attack on everything she has worked for and achieved.

101. Jon H @2:03;
     nice try, but Bill’s had that put to him.
     By myself for one, though likely not as clearly or succinctly.
     But he doesn’t get it.
     I imagine he thinks church is a place where people go to feel good by listening to pretty lies. Responsibility to something larger and better isn’t really in the picture.
     That’s fine, or at least as it is.
     Lots of people who think the same way commit to Obama because they need the world to be a better place.
     It appears Bill doesn’t or can’t think that way. Not in his toolbox.
     EL; I buy it.

102. “As far as loaning her own campaign $10.5 million of her own money, why would anyone — Democrat, Republican, Obamabot or Orville Redenbacher — be upset about that?”
     Yeah, how could ANYONE be upset that plutocrats (and with a hundred million dollars, she IS a plutocrat) get to use their bottomless pocketbooks to self finance campaigns? How could that POSSIBLY represent a problem with our Democracy?

103. “I will say that to some 51% to 49% is a ‘mandate’, not a tie. They seem to be using Republican math, not statistics.”
     To reuse someone else’s line: Who are these mysterious “some”? Have they commented in this thread? If not, whom are you debating with here? People who aren’t here? Any particular reason you’re announcing here what “some” people, somewhere, think, according to your mind-reading machine?

104. what I find so astonishing about her senatorial career and run for President is just how tone-deaf her panders were.
     A good point to add to Pub’s fine analysis. Joe Conason published a post a day or so ago suggesting that HRC recently was ‘channeling George Wallace’. HRC’s latest comments about ‘hardworking Americans, white Americans’ were indeed disgusting, but the main *political* problem with this and other panders was that she is so hard to believe when she does them. When other pols do it, you know they may not really mean what they’re saying, but it’s easier to suspend your disbelief. HRC is simply a bad actor, in the theatre sense. I don’t believe a word she says when she’s politicking. Some people are just better liars/storytellers than others. I always got the feeling that HRC was ‘flying by instruments’ rather than by sight and feel. No match for Obama.

105. Ok, I had to skip down here and say this because someone’s comment above was seriously ridiculous enough to say that Obama is ahead because he’s black.
     How about those voters in PA and Ohio who said race mattered to them in choosing going for CLINTON, not Obama?
     If Obama was white and all other things were equal, he’d have been the nominee for months now.

106. Sarah J —
     At the risk of opening up a whole new can of worms — and it’s not like it hasn’t been discussed before — but let’s face it:
     Race is a huge part of this election.
     By that, I mean if Obama is scoring 90/80/70 percent of an entire voting segment, how can you deny that it isn’t?
     If those numbers were down to 50 or even 60 percent, this race would be even closer — and Clinton might even be in the lead.
     So, yes, race has been a big factor — especially ever since South Carolina when Big Bill opened his Big Mouth, although, I guess, you could argue whether his comments had some merit or not.
     One thing that you can’t argue with is that they put a huge dent in her campaign (just as many of his other free-wheeling thoughts have). But I digress.

107. Clinton won some states, and has far more delegates than Paul ever won, but a win for her is about as improbable.
     That’s not even remotely correct. I can name, offhand, three dangerously plausible ways in which Clinton can win the nomination:
     1) A major scandal emerging from Obama’s past. If the Rezko affair turns out to have hidden dimensions, if something else emerges about Wright, if he had an affair or something else particularly sordid, anything of that nature.
     2) Florida and Michigan get seated (sufficiently) unfavorably to Obama.
     3) Obama suffers from a health problem of some variety (e.g. heart attack, cancer) or is in some other way rendered unfit for office (e.g. victim of violence).
     The main point being, of course, that
     4) Pledged superdelegate are not (so far as I know) mandated to actually vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, and Obama literally cannot win by a sufficient margin to render them irrelevant.
     I’m not saying that any of these are likely, mind; as I said above, she has an essentially non-existent chance of winning under the present rules. But her odds of winning the Democratic nomination are orders of magnitude higher than Ron Paul’s; as in, I literally cannot see how Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination — if, say, McCain died unexpectedly, I will bet you that at least one of the other Republican candidates will “un-withdraw” immediately, with the rules changed to accommodate this if necessary — whereas I think the scenarios I put forth above are well within the realms of plausibility, if not high probability.

108. Pledged superdelegate are not (so far as I know) mandated to actually vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged,
     as Clinton is still pointing out, all delegates (super or otherwise) are free to vote for any one they like.

109. “4) Pledged superdelegates are not (so far as I know) mandated to actually vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged,”
     Fixed.

110. ANARCH —
     Only my second week on this thoughtful, eclectic blog — a real find and not full of “hate-speak” and name-calling that is rampant on the dkos and ever-more predictable huffpo — but I detect that we are both Clinton supporters. Or perhaps you are just more open-minded than me.
     Nevertheless, the points you make about Hillary still being able to win (and Obama essentially blowing up) are well-taken: Points 1, 2 and 4, that is.
     But you are really reaching on Point 3 — a heart attack, cancer, etc.
     Then again, Point 1 may be moot. I mean, Rezko hasn’t registered a blip on the MSM media radar (or the voting public’s).
     And for all of the hullabaloo over Rev. Wright — what seemed like Clinton’s opening to the nomination a month ago — it really hasn’t affected Obama that negatively. (I believe strongly it will be a different story in the GE when the Republicans take their turn at-bat against Obama and the “like-an-uncle-to-me,” hate-mongering Wright).
     Point 2 — Florida and Michigan being resolved in Clinton’s favor — is something I just don’t see. Dean doesn’t want that, and Obama’s Michigan connections blocked the re-vote there.
     But if Clinton can hang on until the convention, who knows?

111. Fair enough; however the likelihood of a normal delegate shifting their allegiance is sufficiently low that I don’t consider it meaningful enough to factor in.

112. The above was to Gary and cleek.
     And BTB, no, I’m an Obama supporter, have been since the beginning. I do, however, believe very strongly in assuming a contest to be over until it’s actually over, especially something like this. For lack of a better term, it’s bad karma.

113. Anarch —
     What I find disappointing, as a Clinton supporter, is that she is finally hitting her stride. She almost overcame Iraq, almost overcame Mark Penn, almost overcame her high personal (polling) negatives, almost overcame a sexist MSM.
     To his credit, Obama seems to have gotten a second wind — just in time, too — to ensure that she was Almost the Democratic nominee.
     To that point, assuming he does indeed secure the nomination, I don’t think one can simply say she lost it. Hell, she fought the good fight, didn’t give an inch, and, in doing so, made him a better candidate.
     So, while it will be fashionable to say she lost the nomination, in the end, Obama will have won it.
     His campaign message seems overly general to me, but at this writing, a majority of voters think otherwise. His bright package of charisma and steady message of hope — and a public yearning for a president who won’t let them down — seems to be what this nation wants.
     I prefer give-’em-hell Hillary’s relentlessness, her tireless determination and her vision of a strong and compassionate America. But then again, I’ve never viewed Senator Clinton through a cynical lense of built-in disgust and disdain.

114. “– but I detect that we are both Clinton supporters.”
     What number am I thinking of?
     “But you are really reaching on Point 3 — a heart attack, cancer, etc.”
     Anarch: “3) Obama suffers from a health problem of some variety (e.g. heart attack, cancer) or is in some other way rendered unfit for office (e.g. victim of violence).
     You’re asserting that Obama is immortal, and can’t die?
     What?
     Anarch stated a plain fact: that’s how Clinton could win. You disagree? Or are you disagreeing with something he didn’t write, that you’re imagining he wrote?
     Your whole response seems to be based on some other comment that Anarch must have written somewhere else, a comment in which Anarch was making some kind of claim about the likelihood of these possibilities; was there some other such comment you have in mind?
     What Anarch actually wrote: “her odds of winning the Democratic nomination are orders of magnitude higher than Ron Paul.”
     That’s the comment you both seem to be addressing, while also addressing some other, not visible here, comment.
     Or maybe it was from some other Anarch, the one who is the Clinton supporter?
     Anarch:”I do, however, believe very strongly in assuming a contest to be over until it’s actually over, especially something like this.”
     My own mind-reading machine, however, says that Anarch meant to write “in not assuming.”

115. Anarch wrote: “I’m not saying that any of these are likely, mind; as I said above, she has an essentially non-existent chance of winning under the present rules.”
     She doesn’t actually have to be actively campaigning in order to take advantage of an Obama scandal or health crisis, so those wouldn’t seem to be relevant to the question.
     Everyone on the GOP side has “dropped out” except McCain and Paul. If McCain dropped dead tomorrow, the GOP would neither hand the nom to Ron Paul, nor would they decide to not run anybody.
     They’d probably give it to Romney or Huckabee, who have been comfortably chillaxin on the side for quite a while, especially in Romney’s case.

116. What I find disappointing, as a Clinton supporter, is that she is finally hitting her stride. She almost overcame Iraq,
     Huh? Did Clinton build a time machine and change her position in 2003? Did she somehow make all the dead Iraqis come back to life? Because, dude, if she did that, I would totally vote for her.
     almost overcame Mark Penn,
     Wait, did Clinton finally fire Penn? Or is there no amount of mendacity and incompetence that will get him fired? I have to say, claiming that you are severing ties while ensuring that Penn still plays a major role in the campaign strikes me as the worst of all possible worlds, but I lack both Clinton and Penn’s strategic vision.
     His campaign message seems overly general to me,
     Fascinating. So, which issue do you think he’s overly general on? Have you looked at what’s written on his website regarding that issue?
     but at this writing, a majority of voters think otherwise. His bright package of charisma and steady message of hope — and a public yearning for a president who won’t let them down — seems to be what this nation wants.
     Have you ever, you know, actually spoken with an Obama supporter? Because I think you’ve misread the motivations of most of them. I’m sure there are people that are as you describe, but I haven’t met any yet.
     I prefer give-’em-hell Hillary’s relentlessness,
     Yeah, she sure is a fighter. Remember how she never gave up and kept fighting back against Richard Mellon Scaife for his attempts to destroy her family and take the country along with them if need be? She was really relentless there. And it reassures me to know that she would never turn on her friends who defended her against Scaife’s attacks…you know, friends like MoveOn.
     Of course, she’s been pretty relentless in keeping Mark Penn employed.
     her tireless determination and her vision of a strong and compassionate America.
     Her tireless determination is really impressive; it compelled her to learn everything she could before voting to invade Iraq: that’s why she didn’t read the classified NIE even though Dem senators on the intelligence committee begged and pleaded with their fellow senators to read the damn thing. And her vision? Outstanding! Why, I can’t imagine anything that has made America stronger than the invasion she voted for. And what could be more compassionate than opening the gates of hell and allowing half a million people to be murdered in the most brutal ways imaginable. I suppose the lucky ones were bombed in their sleep; the unlucky probably suffered dyspeptic encounters with electric drills. But that’s exactly what compassionate means: making it possible for thousands of complete strangers half the world away to be tortured to death for no reason. I love this vision!
     But then again, I’ve never viewed Senator Clinton through a cynical lense of built-in disgust and disdain.
     You know what? I’ve never molested children. Now, I’m not saying that you personally molest children. I’m just saying that child molesters are out there. And I’m not one of them. You know. Draw your own conclusions.

117. I prefer give-’em-hell Hillary’s relentlessness, her tireless determination and her vision of a strong and compassionate America. But then again, I’ve never viewed Senator Clinton through a cynical lense of built-in disgust and disdain.
     bedtimeforbonzo,
     Welcome and I hope that you enjoy reading the posts here and have valuable contributions to make. Turbulence already dissected your 10:39 comment in detail, so at the risk of appearing to pile on (not intended) I’m going to chip in with my 2 cents as well.
     If you are open minded about the reasons some of us posting here have articulated for supporting Obama over Hillary, archives of past discussions are available both on this site and via Google, and would be worth your time to peruse before throwing out slurs and crass generalizations like the one I highlighted in bold above.
     Speaking only for myself, yes I currently do view Hillary with disgust and disdain, but that is a feeling which has developed only very recently in reaction to specific statements and actions on her part and on the part of her principle campaign spokespeople and political and policy surrogates.
     As recently as the debate prior to the Nevada primary I had a relatively high opinion of her and thought I could easily support the eventual winner of the democratic primary contest regardless of who it might be, and if that were Hillary that she would make a fine president.
     Her recent actions have caused me to dramtically re-evaluate those sentiments, to regret my political naivete, and to remind myself that you don’t know a leader or have a good basis for estimating what they may be capable of until you have truly seen them operate under pressure. Hillary has been operating under extreme pressure since Super Tuesday, and IMHO her policies and politics have gone from (metaphorical) ugly to uglier during this period. Particular low points since Super Tuesday (i.e., not counting pre-existing stuff like AUMF) from my point of view have been:
     1) Their rhetoric stating that some states (e.g., caucus states) don’t count, most particularly if they didn’t vote for Hillary. Only big states count, except when they go for Obama. Only swing states count, except when they go for Obama. Red states don’t count, unless they don’t have many actual AA voters, in which case they count for a lot. I have considerable tolerance for when a campaign tries to spin a difficult loss and place it in a larger context, but the IMHO the HRC campaign has repeatedly gone way over the line which distinguishes conventional media spin tactics from a attempt to de-legitimize the entire nominating process when they don’t like the results.
     2) The HRC campaign’s ongoing dishonest goal post shifting regarding FL and most especially MI.
     3) The HRC campaign’s cynical re-positioning re: NAFTA in Ohio, and her appalling commander-in-chief threshold remarks praising the nominee of the GOP by comparison with her chief rival within the same party.
     4) Her strategy of sticking with bald-faced lies over the Tuzla airport controversy rather than admit a mistake and move on.
     5) HRC’s announced policy of threatening massive nuclear retaliation against Iran (what would that lead to, 35 million dead or so?) in the event of an Iranian attack on Israel (who have their own nuclear deterrent force, but never mind that) which emerged at the Philly debate, and the convolutions and contradictions of the policy she proclaimed at that time to create a NATO like defence alliance and extended nuclear umbrella in the Middle East including not only Israel but also several unnamed but implicitly Sunni Arab nations.
     6) The great gas-tax pander, and her anti-elite comments subsequent to it denouncing essentially the entire community of trained economic experts. I guess Paul Krugman isn’t such a smarty-pants after all?
     7) Numerous statements from her campaign regarding Obama’s electibility that at best can be described as concern-trolling the GOP point of view regarding Ayers, flag pins and guns, attacks on “effete latte sipping elites” (aka the people who coughed up a lot of money for the Clintons over the years and defended them during the 90s), and now the HRC campaign’s post-NC open race baiting and factual distortions over the issue of “can Obama win the white vote?”, and which render their prior distancing of themselves from Geraldine Ferraro’s intemperate remarks on race and their claims to innocence regarding Bill Clinton’s post-SC Jesse Jackson comment rather moot.
     These are all very specific and recent things which have convinced me that Hillary is very unfairly and inappropriately being denied what she so richly deserves and has worked so hard so obtain – the Republican nomination for the Presidency.
     Too bad John McCain got there first.
     Better luck next time.

118. Gary: My own mind-reading machine, however, says that Anarch meant to write “in not assuming.”
     As with so many other things, you are correct!
     [Imagine that said in a Phil Hartman voice. It’s a good thing.]
     Jon: She doesn’t actually have to be actively campaigning in order to take advantage of an Obama scandal or health crisis, so those wouldn’t seem to be relevant to the question.
     I disagree, if only because Clinton’s active campaigning significantly reduces the threshold for either the scandal or the health crisis to matter to the superdelegates (or the regular pledged delegates but again I don’t consider that likely enough to matter). Basically, I think his position is more precarious than most people (especially Obama supporters) believe.
     To put it another way, I think that under the current “rules” — where by “rules” I don’t just mean the formal rules of the primaries but the larger trends of the primaries thus far — Obama is a lock, but if the “rules” change, Clinton could well take the lead. The key point is that Clinton’s active campaigning reduces the magnitude of the shift required to put Clinton over. A minor sex scandal, a snippy remark or even a mild heart attack wouldn’t cost McCain the nomination IMO, but I could well see such a thing compromising Obama’s campaign just enough for Clinton to sneak through.
     They’d probably give it to Romney or Huckabee, who have been comfortably chillaxin on the side for quite a while, especially in Romney’s case.
     Absolutely. I could even see them re-opening the primaries, calling for emergency revotes — at government expense, of course 😉 — to redo the elections in McCain’s absence. [Sort of like what the governor of Florida offered to do for the Democrats.] There’s no way they’re giving the nomination to Ron Paul.
     bedtimeforbonzo: But then again, I’ve never viewed Senator Clinton through a cynical lense of built-in disgust and disdain.
     I certainly don’t, nor do most commenters here AFAIK. [There are certainly some, but comments have suggested they’re in the minority.] Speaking only for myself, I liked Clinton in the 90s and I still like her as a person insofar as I think I can see her as such; it’s the way she’s conducted this campaign that’s made me actively dislike her as a politician. Aside from her votes on Iraq etc. — most of the positions I have a problem with have been enumerated above — I find her lauding of McCain over Obama to be unforgivable. No Democratic politician should ever support a Republican over a Democrat without serious cause. I’m talking major sex scandal (e.g. pedophilia a la Foley), corruption (e.g. Jefferson), that sort of thing. Intra-party competition is all well and good, but at the end of the day the party is a team that’s supposed to be aimed towards a common goal; that’s the very reason for its existence. People can disagree on the fine print of that goal, or on how to reach it, but if you stop playing for your team and start supporting the other side, well, you’ve pretty much betrayed the party to serve your own ends.
     I’m not saying that Clinton should be drummed out of the party, mind, as I did Lieberman. I am saying that she’s done serious damage to the party in the way that she’s conducted her campaign, to the point where I cannot in good conscience support her. Should she win the primary, I might vote for her or I might not — it’ll depend on how she gets the nomination, and I’m unwilling to speculate at this point — but I certainly won’t spend either time or money to help her win. Which is unfortunate because, I said above, I do like her as a person and (in the abstract) I really would like a woman in the White House.
     [Not that I wouldn’t like a black man in the White House either, of course.]

119. Turbulence —
     Wow. Just read your comments, and I must say, you have way too much hate toward Senator Clinton in your bones — disdainful indeed. I can understand why you cannot comment on her objectively.
     Left Turn —
     You make some good, albeit warmed-over, points — points millions of Democratic voters must have overlooked when voting for her. For all of her weaknesses, it’s pretty amazing that she won Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire and — don’t jump out of your seat just yet — Florida. Crucial battleground states in the GE that could very well vote for McCain over Obama.
     (P.S. I talk regularly with three Obama supporters during our 54-hour work week, and respect their views and friendship even though we obviously disagree. Saying I have never read or considered his message or ideas is simply a pot shot, but hey, keep shooting if it turns you on.)
     Anarch —
     If you think Clinton has done serious damage to our party — the conventional wisdom laid out by the MSM the past couple weeks — then the Democratic Party needs to develop some backbone. I hope it’s not that fragile. If so, that’s exactly my point: We need a fighter like Hillary who will shoot back at the Swiftboaters.
     If Obama is indeed our nominee, those cynics who view her through a built-in lense of disgust and disdain will no doubt refuse to give her credit for toughening him up for the fall campaign. And if he loses, it will be all her fault. How sad.

120. Wow. Just read your comments, and I must say, you have way too much hate toward Senator Clinton in your bones — disdainful indeed. I can understand why you cannot comment on her objectively.
     How do you know what I have in my bones? And who cares whether or not one is disdainful? Isn’t the important thing to be accurate and truthful even if that leads to disdain? I mean, I thought that we should all strive to disdain things that are worthy of disdain…shouldn’t we?
     You haven’t really addressed any of the points I’ve raised. Can you explain how you think Clinton was finally starting to overcome Iraq? Can you explain why you think she’s a fighter even though she refuses to fight against Scaife while fighting against MoveOn? Can you explain why you think she deserves the Presidency even though she was too lazy to read the NIE on the most important vote of her career? If you can answer those questions, we might be able to have a productive conversation. The point remains: making bizarre counter-factual statements with no evidence is not an effective way to convince people.
     …those cynics who view her through a built-in lense of disgust and disdain…
     What does this even mean? Are you saying that everyone who dislikes Clinton does so for irrational reasons? That no one who dislikes her can articulate a substantiative issues-based critique that motivates their vote? Are you saying that it is inappropriate to ever feel disgust or disdain for any politician, no matter what they do? Or are you trying to say that Clinton has done nothing at all that would merit any disgust or disdain? I really don’t get your meaning here.

121. …those cynics who view her through a built-in lense of disgust and disdain…
     To be clear, do you think any of those cynics are on this forum right now? Do you think that Anarch or LeftTurn or myself are such people? If you don’t, why on earth are you talking about them? Do you think they’re a significant fraction of the population?

122. “We need a fighter like Hillary who will shoot back at the Swiftboaters.”
     Hillary fights only to fulfill her political ambition. That’s it.
     She’s certainly giving up without a fight on the “will America vote for a black guy” issue.

123. A real cynics take on Obama.

124. Saying I have never read or considered his message or ideas is simply a pot shot, but hey, keep shooting if it turns you on.
     bedtimeforbonzo,
     I don’t think I made any statement to that effect; if I did, please quote where I wrote that so I can disavow it and correct it. I have no information from which to make a judgement regarding whether you are or are not familiar with Obama and his message or ideas, or to what degree this might be the case.
     What I wrote that I suspect you may be reacting to was:
     “If you are open minded about the reasons some of us posting here have articulated for supporting Obama over Hillary, archives of past discussions are available both on this site and via Google, and would be worth your time to peruse before throwing out slurs and crass generalizations”
     [highlighting added for emphasis]
     I thought my meaning was fairly clear when I wrote this. I did not mean for it to be read as an accusation directed at you of ignorance regarding Obama or the campaign more broadly.
     I was suggesting that perhaps you are not sufficiently familiar with the body of past comments by specific commentators on this particular blog who are currently supporting Obama (and who have left a detailed record of their changing reactions during the course of this primary contest) to justify the statement of yours posted at 5-10-2008 10:39PM which I specifically quoted at the top of my 5-11-2008 1:17AM comment, and in which I made the point of highlighting what I found questionable.
     Some one who has followed the discussions on this blog concerning the Democratic primaires in detail since last year would understand these older comments as providing necessary context to fairly judge whether those of us currently dismayed and/or disgusted with the HRC campaign are motivated by longstanding irrational hatred of her as implied in your “built-in lense of disgust and disdain” comment.
     That is a serious charge to make (it strikes me as a politely phrased accusation of Clinton Derangement Syndrome), and since you yourself wrote that this is “Only my second week on this thoughtful, eclectic blog”, I thought it likely that you were not familiar with this body of older commentary.
     Please note that I am not in any way denigrating you for being new on this blog. I myself am relatively new as well, and I find it very refreshing to hear new voices and from points of view that are at times sparsely represented here. I hope that you will continue to contribute and don’t take all of this nitpicking personally. From my limited experience this particular forum seems to be something of a nitpicker’s paradise – but that is part of the charm of the place and once you get used to it, it starts to grow on you.

125. The premise of this article, that Hillary’s support of the Iraq war doomed her campaign, strikes me as correct; it certainly applies to me.
     I was very concerned that a President Clinton would tack to the center on Iraq, and decide that staying is less politically damaging than getting out of that neo-colonial horror show. And this concern, reinforced by her anti-Iran vote on Kyl-Lieberman, is one reason that I greatly prefer Obama to Clinton. On *paper*, they both proclaim the same goals, but I’ve never been convinced Clinton would really buck the conventional wisdom on Iraq and take the PR hit that withdrawing from Iraq would require.
     But I think it is seriously wrong to believe that being a liberal, in the 1970s and 1980s sense of the word, is at all coming back into vogue. Having lived through them, I associate the 70-80s definition of “liberal” with more of an emphasis on righting historical wrongs, and less a focus on opportunity going forward. When you hear Reverend Wright speak, harkening back to the evils of Columbus, and American slavery, you get an idea of the flavor of *some* of the discussions of that era.
     In comparison to Wright’s view of the world, today, American society is a lot less racist and sexist than it was 30 years ago. What I think is changing now is that people are seeing first hand that completely unregulated capitalism, or capitalism whose regulations are written by and for the largest corporations, isn’t working. The visible failures are legion: a health insurance system where anyone with health problems becomes uninsurable; a financial system where individual home owners, even those deceived by misleading mortgage brokers, lose their homes, but investment banks that gambled on bonds derived from those same mortgages are “too big to fail”; a war in Iraq to force a weak Iraqi government to pay oil royalties to American oil companies, while ordinary soldiers are provided with insufficient equipment, a doomed mission, and perpetual redeployments.
     But don’t confuse the 1970s with today. Most people *today* want the rough edges of capitalism smoothed, not more affirmative action, a return to traditional welfare, or increased unionization (with its inflexible work rules that damage the competitiveness of American companies — see Honda vs. GM, for example).
     In other words, don’t get carried away with dreams of a progressive revival. Assistance for education and training, for starting small businesses and getting those businesses loans, reforming health insurance, a fairer tax system with higher taxes on large capital gains, and getting out of Iraq — you can build a good and broad coalition around these important areas. But don’t think it is 1970 again — it isn’t.

126. “and I must say, you have way too much hate toward Senator Clinton in your bones”
     No, in fact, there’s no reason you “must” say that.
     And, in fact, I suggest considering the idea that you shouldn’t.
     I suggest that you can productively comment on people’s words, and their stated ideas and opinions, but that you are not, in fact, competent to accurately mind-read other people’s emotions, and that since you cannot, in fact, do so, pretending you can know what emotions someone is or isn’t feeling is an act of unjustified arrogance and presumption, and that it serves to do nothing but proclaim your disdain for someone over something that you can’t know (what someone is feeling, or thinking, rather than simply the meaning of the words they’ve chosen to write), and that this is both rude, and unproductive.
     So my suggestion would be that you reevaluate your conviction that you “must” make mind-reading comments about other people, and consider just what the downside is (pissing other people off, and revealing that you think you’re qualified to read minds, and are arrogant enough to put forward your mindreading in public), compared to the upside (none, since you can’t mindread).
     Turbulence brought up a bunch of substantive points about Clinton. You can put forward an argument as to why any of his assertions are incorrect, or perhaps might be better seen in a different light, or perhaps you might have an additional insight to add that would make all of us nod as we considered it’s wisdom, and thare are all sorts of other approaches you could make to address any of the substantive points.
     Instead you chose to ignore all the substance, and make claims based on something you can’t know — the interior of someone else’s thoughts and feelings.
     I don’t know where you’ve previously practiced the art of discussion, analysis, and exchange of views, but if you want to make a substantive contribution, do that: comment on substance, with substance.
     Or you can go solely with an attack based on mind-reading, with no substance, but instead about what someone allegedly feels.
     Which is undebatable, and unproductive.
     So: substance, or no substance: your choice.
     But it’s just a suggestion, of course. Maybe this line of conversation frequently serves you well. If so, good luck with that.

127. (P.S. I talk regularly with three Obama supporters during our 54-hour work week, and respect their views and friendship even though we obviously disagree. Saying I have never read or considered his message or ideas is simply a pot shot,

     The second sentence seems to be a non-sequitur. What does the fact that you talk with 3 Obama supporters have to do with the issue of how much of Obama’s papers, books, history, and ideas, you are familiar with? Are those people qualified designated campaign surrogates? No? So: relevance?
     Have you read, say, all of Hilzoy’s posts on Obama and Clinton? Which of Obama’s books have you read? Which speeches have you sat through? Which Obama supporter’s blog do you find most interesting?
     You don’t have to answer these questions, but the answers would be sequiturs to your first sentence, at least.
     “Saying I have never read or considered his message or ideas is simply a pot shot,”
     So, respond on point. But that’s a fascinating complaint from someone who just wrote that “you have way too much hate toward Senator Clinton in your bones.”
     On what grounds, exactly, can you claim that it’s illegitimate for someone to suggest you might be unfamiliar when something, when you believe it’s perfectly fine to go so far as to claim mind-reading powers, and the right to make public announcements about what other people feel and believe (while ignoring every substantive point they make)?
     How does that work?

128. Farber —
     Sorry it has taken so long to respond but I have not been able to log on since my last post. Mother’s Day, playing horseshoes w/ my 9-year-old Obama-supporting son and the need for sleep interferred.
     I would suggest that there is a fine line between pissing someone off and provoking thought/comment/response/emotion — a line you seem to walk regularly.
     My statement that I work and talk often w/ three Obama supporters was a direct response to Turbulence wondering if I had ever spoken to an Obama backer, plain and simple. I notice you are quick to confront any and all comments and arguments in your role as Head Nit-Picker here. And you do a good job of it:)

129. LeftTurn —
     Nice to know I am not the only one new to this blog, and thanks for the welcome and encouragement to continue.
     At the risk of reading minds, I must say I can see where this blog would be intimidating to newcomers — and perhaps this is why I have already noticed in two weeks that you see the same names posting over and over again (and doing a damn good job of it).
     Also, I notice that it seems pretty easy to offend here, even when not making a personal attack. That said, you make a good point about some of the commentators coming at things from a background filled w/ past comments/observations/opinions throughout the entire primary. (I hope we’re not expected to read every frigging post that’s ever been written here, however).
     Thanks again.
     And you’re right: All of the nit-picking can be a bit much but it is indeed part of the obsidian’s charm.

130. My statement that I work and talk often w/ three Obama supporters was a direct response to Turbulence wondering if I had ever spoken to an Obama backer, plain and simple.
     I wondered about that. I think that I (and maybe Gary and ThatLeftTurn) were confused because that paragraph showed up in the part of your comment addressed to ThatLeftTurn and not to me.
     It is great that you talk to Obama supporters. And maybe those that you talk with really are the type that support Obama because of hope and never wanting to be let down (are there people that support politicians because they WANT to be let down?). Or maybe you’re misreading them. I don’t know and don’t really care.
     Perhaps you could address the substantiative issues I’ve raised, repeatedly now?

131. And Turbulence:
     I do wonder how you — and some other pro-Obama folks here — make of the challenge Obama will have in the GE winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida in the fall.
     And:
     Can he win the GE w/o winning Pennsylvania and Ohio?
     I raised this question earlier and it went unnoticed, although curiously, my ability to read minds did not.
     (I do not raise this issue to be a smart ass. I simply believe Obama’s ability/inability to win Pennsylvania and Ohio will be crucial to whether Democrats take back the White House. Yet it is a point Obama backers never address.)

132. I do wonder how you — and some other pro-Obama folks here — make of the challenge Obama will have in the GE winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida in the fall.
     My apologies for missing it. In my opinion:
     1. Primary performance tells us little about GE performance. Simply because a voter prefers Clinton to Obama does not tell us anything about whether the voter prefers McCain to Obama. To be honest, I find the failure amongst Clinton partisans to understand and engage this point to be terrifying.
     2. I’ve often heard complaints by Clinton supporters that Obama voters are less likely to be “real” Democrats: i.e., they’re more likely to be conservative crossovers or people new to politics. The implication is that the votes of “true” Democrats (i.e., those who vote for Clinton) should count more. Well, that argument cuts both ways: how true can these “real” Democrats be if they’re not willing to vote for the Democratic nominee? What factor do you think might compel these people to vote for McCain over Obama? I mean, are you saying that these people will vote for McCain because they can’t stand black men? Because they want 10,000 years in Iraq? Are you saying that these people don’t really care about issues?
     3. Obama’s gap amongst this section of the demographic appears to be largely an artifact of his performance amongst those over 60. If you look at the population under 60, Obama is far more competitive. Which is why he’s having such a hard time in PA and (I expect) WV: these states have many many old people. That means that we should be talking about Obama’s problem with old white people rather than white working class people. I think that, all things being equal, elderly people are going to find McCain much more attractive than Clinton: he’s one of them after all. More to the point, I think Obama can change their minds: all he has to do is start talking about McCain’s plans to cut social security.
     4. I’m not convinced that Obama has a massive problem in Florida, absent Clinton’s attempts to sabotage him there by harping on her stolen election meme.
     I’m still waiting for you responses to the substantiative issues that I raised earlier.

133. make of the challenge Obama will have in the GE winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida in the fall.
     1. the GE is six months away.
     2. some people see Obama doing well in places Clinton won’t, and vice versa.
     Can he win the GE w/o winning Pennsylvania and Ohio?
     538’s current numbers show Clinton winning both, and yet Obama still does better than Clinton, overall, though they are both losing to McCain at this point.
     maybe it’s time to start working for the benefit of the party instead of trying to defeat the presumptive nominee before the race even starts. maybe?

134. My statement that I work and talk often w/ three Obama supporters was a direct response to Turbulence wondering if I had ever spoken to an Obama backer, plain and simple.
     bedtimeforbonzo,
     A couple of observations: Each blog has its own unique style, and conversations proceed more smoothly when all of the participants have some mutual understanding as to what that is.
     First, in my own very limited experience ObWings differs from the other political blogs I read in having a somewhat cooler emotional tone, which means that when you disagree with another commentator it should be probably be phrased in a more neutral manner than would be the norm on other blogs which feature more of a food-fight style of discourse. Because of this cooler tone, attacks phrased in a manner which would be the norm on other blogs may draw a sharper response here because they are farther from the mean (than you may be aware of).
     Second, this a forum where IMHO precision is valued by many of the participants, and consequently a lack of precision, use of unsubstantiated generalities, citation of unverifiable evidence, etc. are frowned upon and will tend to attract critical comments. I think of this place as having a distinctly Karl Popper-ish style of argument – falsifiable statements are the meat and potatoes of argument here. If you try to avoid making assertions which are non-falsifiable (like mind reading other people) your arguments will fare better.
     I have found that it is a wise idea when responding to something written by another commentator here, to quote them directly (using italics or some other stylistic marker to distinguish quoted text from your own prose). Doing this helps us cut down on misunderstandings (and the needless friction which results) and acts as a reminder to us to focus on words and arguments rather than personalities.
     At the risk of reading minds, I must say I can see where this blog would be intimidating to newcomers — and perhaps this is why I have already noticed in two weeks that you see the same names posting over and over again (and doing a damn good job of it). Also, I notice that it seems pretty easy to offend here, even when not making a personal attack.
     Yes, this blog can at times be intimidating. There are a lot of people who comment on this forum who are far more intelligent, highly educated, and widely read that I am. My advice to you given from one newcomer to another would be to make your best attempt at participating and do not hold back, but watch and learn from the regulars and adjust your style of posting (not necessarily your ideology or viewpoint) over time to follow their lead. Their achievement in maintaining a place for discussion with a comparatively wide ideological range from very progressive to pretty conservative is remarkable and IMHO not an accident, but a positive consequence of some of the decisions regarding tone made by the blog hosts and frequent commentators. If they get very defensive about maintaining that tone, I can understand where they are coming from. Keep in mind that having a forum which is touchy with regard the personal attacks may be the price we pay for having a forum where a wide range of ideas are welcome. Focus on ideas, not personalities, and structure your arguments accordingly.

135. “I do not raise this issue to be a smart ass. I simply believe Obama’s ability/inability to win Pennsylvania and Ohio will be crucial to whether Democrats take back the White House. Yet it is a point Obama backers never address.”
     As an Obama backer, I’ll address it: I hope and expect Obama to win Pennsylvania and Ohio, and I see no reason why he can’t.
     Is it a sure thing? No. That’s why it’s important for Democrats to not campaign in a way that’s destructive to the Democratic nominee’s chances in the general election.
     (Destructive as in, say, claiming that the candidate isn’t qualified to be President, and running ads with the premise that John McCain is the most qualified person to be President. Democrats don’t actually campaign in ways that help the Republican candidate. Not and stay regarded as Democrats, rather than as out purely for themselves, and seen as screwing the Party. And lots of us well remember the Clintons screwing the Party downticket in two national elections.)
     But the Democratic nominee has long stood an excellent chance, if not an overwhelming likelihood, of winning Ohio and Pennsylvania in November. As has been commonly known for more than a year.
     Next?

136. (I do not raise this issue to be a smart ass. I simply believe Obama’s ability/inability to win Pennsylvania and Ohio will be crucial to whether Democrats take back the White House. Yet it is a point Obama backers never address.)
     My earlier comments were based in part on Matt Yglesias’ comments. I think that disproves the notion that Obama supporters “never” discuss these issues.
     Also, I think it would help to put your argument here in context. As Clinton’s campaign has steadily deteriorated, she and her surrogates have stated that the criteria for the nominee be increasingly bizarre tests rather than, you know, winning the nomination process. First it was the popular vote, then it was the popular vote minus unimportant states, then minus caucus states and unimportant states, etc. Now you’re suggesting that the party should abandon the nomination process in favor of deciding based on who is more likely to win PA and OH. Or is it a question of whether the Democratic party should be using the Republican party’s rules? I forget. Of course, many of the arguments involved here are just wrong. I find the goal post moving here slightly offensive. I don’t think most Clinton supporters would tolerate such behavior if Clinton was actually, you know, winning the nomination process.
     Finally, just because Clinton polls favorably in some areas does not mean she would carry them in the GE. The difference between random polling and GE performance has to do with campaigning skill: how well can Clinton’s campaign organization plan ahead, get their message out, respond to McCain’s attacks, and put him on the defensive. I think experience has show that the answer is: not well. Her campaigns (including her Senate campaign) have so far been…bad. They take in a ridiculous amount of money but then squander it with little controls and apparently little effort to measure effectiveness. The people at the top (including Clinton herself) remain ignorant of how much money is being taken in and how much is being spent, so they have no idea when they’re broke. High level tactical planners are ignorant of the most basic facts like “are Democratic primaries proportional or first-past-the-post?” and “how do the TX primaries work?”. For that matter, even the best people on Clinton’s staff, such as her campaign manager, hail from organizations that are at best spectacularly incompetent: they literally cannot figure out how to avoid breaking the law by reading a calendar. I don’t see any reason to believe that a campaign that has been this magnificently incompetent will suddenly become intelligent after the nomination. Clinton was able to cruise through the nominating process relying on political favors that Bill accrued and the old party machine, but those will be much less important in the GE. Clinton has demonstrated that she’s not skilled at choosing good people (see Penn, Mark or Solis-Doyles, Patty).

137. “I think of this place as having a distinctly Karl Popper-ish style of argument – falsifiable statements are the meat and potatoes of argument here. If you try to avoid making assertions which are non-falsifiable (like mind reading other people) your arguments will fare better.”
     I speak only for myself, of course (though I’ve been commenting heavily at this blog for what now turns out to be far longer than any of the remaining front-page posters/blogowners [it was Moe, von, Edward, and Katherine, who were the starting team]), but I give people a few chances to make substantive, on point, supported, coherent, logical, fact-based comments, with supported cites or indisuptable facts — which is what makes a comment worth discussing — and if they don’t come up with some of those after a while, or instead largely post substance-free comments based largely on emotional appeals, or they can’t write coherently, or they don’t bother to link to support for their facts, I tend to figure they aren’t up to substantive debate, like most people aren’t, and go on with conversing with the people worth reading.
     But we all have our own approaches.
     Mine is to take more interest in the one kind of response (or the more creative, Thullenesque or Culpaesque, responses); life is too short to spend much time on people who don’t know what a substantive argument is, or how to make one.
     And I’d infinitely rather spend time with people who are capable of making insightful points, and good arguments, who disagree with me, than with people who agree with me incoherently or illogically.
     And thus I also second ThatLeftTurnInABQ’s comment of 11:40 AM, and note that Turbulence’s 11:19 AM is entirely correct in that he’s twice asked bedtimeforbonzo to respond on substance to TLTIABQ’s 5-11-2008 1:17AM comment, and Turbulence’s May 11, 2008 at 12:11, and btfb has now twice passed on the opportunity. (The whole thing about writing is that it stays there, unchanged, whether replied to, or not.)
     Third time at bat, btfb, and the pitch is low, and slow, in the strike zone.

138. I think of this place as having a distinctly Karl Popper-ish style of argument – falsifiable statements are the meat and potatoes of argument here. If you try to avoid making assertions which are non-falsifiable (like mind reading other people) your arguments will fare better.
     I might be totally off base here, but I want to attribute this to Gary. In my (limited) view, the front pagers did a good job of modeling this ethos, but Gary has been the dominant force in effecting the norm by confronting people who violated it, and taking the time to explain to them how they were violating it. If good models were sufficient for norm compliance, I think we would live in a much better world.
     In that sense, I think that I personally owe him a great deal. Of course, at times, there are simply no words sufficient to describe the degree to which he is wrong.

139. in other news, Bob Barr just announced he’s in as the Libertarian candidate.
     mmm. spoilers.

140. The RCP average now shows Obama leading McCain by 5 in Pennsylvania.

141. “I might be totally off base here, but I want to attribute this to Gary.”
     That’s most kind of you, but I attribute much of my sense of what does and doesn’t make for a productive conversation (and I say immediately that my dire lack of self-awareness at just how sarcastic I can be, and my baseline for default sarcasm being far higher than the norm, being in frequent dramatic opposition to my intellectual awareness of what makes for a productive conversation, means that I constantly owe people deserved apologies for unnecessary snark) to growing up in science fiction fandom, and participating in written discussions identical to blog comment conversations, from the age of 12 (37 and a half years ago), to the tone set by some of my wiser elders there, and then to the styles I saw on ARPANET’s SF-LOVERs list, in the late Seventies, when I collected and stored transcripts of the entirety of the group conversation, as part of my archive, and then to the style on panix.chat, my first online home, circa 1995, and lastly to the example set by my Usenet forerunners in the formative years, particularly a few folks in the rec.arts.sf.* hierarchy, but also elsewhere on Usenet and the alt.* hierarchy.
     And, you know, to Kibo. (And Walt Willis.)
     And the ethos I was always raised on was that a group discussion/community is only as good as its members, and that community is created by all its members, and it’s up to those members to self-police the community according to the accepted group norms, and that that’s part of how a good community is created: by most folks taking some of the responsibility for communicating and perpetuating what the acceptable norms are and are not, policing spam, and so for.
     It’s like addressing litter and having a neighborhood watch in your neighborhood: it works best when as many folks as possible step up a bit, and thus no one is left with an unreasonable burden of responsibility for keeping up the neighborhood, and the norm stays tolerable, and trolls are kept reasonably at bay.
     Thanks muchly for the huge compliment you’ve paid me here, Turbulence. I greatly appreciate it, and your kindness is saying so. But any virtues I bring to the table come from the shoulders of the forebearers I stand on, from Usenet and sf fandom, and all the flaws I bring to conversation (sarcasm, snarkiness, lapsing into cranky intolerance of foolishness, poor choice of tone at times, unintended insulting, and the list goes on), are all my own.

142. Gary F. once again is being prevented from commenting by the software, no matter that his comment had no links whatever in it.
     Please release my comment. Thanks.

143. Thanks, Hilzoy, for releasing my link-free comment of 1:04 p.m.

144. I might be totally off base here, but I want to attribute this to Gary. In my (limited) view, the front pagers did a good job of modeling this ethos, but Gary has been the dominant force in effecting the norm by confronting people who violated it, and taking the time to explain to them how they were violating it.
     I agree with Turb. here. Gary, you are very significant role model on this forum, albeit one that I personally do a rather poor job of emulating.
     If I could be so bold as to make a constructive criticism of your style, it would be that I think attracting “new blood” is good for a blog and sometimes it seems to me that you come on rather more strongly with new people than I personally would feel comfortable doing, and that perhaps you might want to consider letting those of us who are new benefit from more gentle criticism and a longer learning curve than you tend to dish out, but obviously YMMV.
     That in no way detracts from the fact that I greatly admire the sometimes herculean effort you make to keep the discussions here precise and factually grounded, as much as they can be when they focus on something as personal and subjective as politics. I see the efforts made to do this by you and others here as crucial to upholding the values which makes this a must-read blog por moi. There are other blogs I can go to when I’m in the mood for a food-fight, but there is IMHO only one place like ObWings. Please keep up the good work.

145. Turbulence —
     Point 1 you raise has merit. However, I think it would be foolish not to use primary voting patterns as a clue, at the very least, when looking ahead to the GE.
     Point 2 — “I’ve often heard complaints by Clinton supporters that Obama voters are less likely to be ‘real’ Democrats: i.e., they’re more likely to be conservative crossovers or people new to politics” — is a complaint I will never make.
     On the contrary, I see Obama and McCain voters as to distinct entities. I really don’t see many McCain voters supporting one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate.
     Point 3 — I agree with you in that Obama can (and must) win over the votes of Clinton’s strong over-60 support. They will show up to the polls come November. Guaranteed. But will Obama’s 18-25ers? Probably. But who knows?
     And Obama’s weak showing in Pennsylvania and Ohio, in particular, does suggest that he needs to work on his support among white blue-collar voters, not just white over-60 voters.
     Point 4 — Florida — let’s face it, Obama, or Clinton, would have a challenge here.
     From today’s Real Clear Politics Poll of Polls:
     McCain over Obama, in PA, +5.
     McCain over Obama, in OH, 3.4.
     McCain over Obama, in FL, +9.
     Yes, they have Clinton winning all three swing states. But that is growing ever-more irrelevant now that Obama has a pretty solid lock on the nomination.
     (P.S. Turbulence, I will try and get back to you on those other issues you keep me reminding me about, when, hopefully, I get some time, outside of work, to give you more than just a passing response.)

146. LeftTurn:
     Very good advice.
     And it would help if I could find the damn italics bar.

147. LeftTurn at 1:54 pm —
     Kudos to everything you said.
     Very Voice of Reasonish.
     Farber at 12:01 —
     In most endeavors, I’ve found it better to be more inclusive than exlcusive, more open-minded than closed.
     And on the whole, I’d rather be in Philadelphia.

148. [it was Moe, von, Edward, and Katherine, who were the starting team]),
     In the interests of keeping the thread as fact-based as possible, it should be pointed out that Edward was a mid-season addition to the roster — originally it was just Moe in right field, Katherine in left, and von in center.

149. < i > Your italic text here < /i >
     [Minus the spaces, though.]

150. Gee Gary, and I just figured (during the past week) that working on a cranky computer might put me on edge too, only more so.
     I’d only add to LeftTurn’s and Turb’s praise for Gary that details can make all the difference, and Gary has an eagle eye for significant details. We are gratefully in his debt.
     I want to go on record as delighted to find myself adjectively aligned. So much more relationally grounded than being a verb.

151. Datapoint #1: Obama currently leads McCain in PA, quoth 538. Don’t know how reliable it is, but their numbers have seemed reasonable thus far.
     Datapoint #2: The Republicans are woefully short on money this cycle, while Obama in particular (but the Democrats in general) are flush with it. The true power of an Obama nomination isn’t just the swing state battles, it’s the sheer number of other states he can put into play: Virginia, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, Alaska, Indiana, Michigan; while locking down other potential swing states (Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota). Yes, it puts a few states more up for grabs than we’d like — Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida — but the point is that the Republicans simply don’t have the resources to play defense everywhere they’re vulnerable — let alone offense where they’d like — while Obama and the Democrats should be able to hammer them anywhere they’re weak. This will also put more Democrats in Congress, which can only be a good thing.
     Upshot is (pace Cala a few thread from now) that Obama has a real chance of winning this thing using the 50-state strategy, not the swing state strategy, and that too can only be a good thing. Let’s energize the country, not just the voters of a handful of states, and see where it leads us.

152. Oh, forgot to mention NC amongst the states Obama puts into play. That’s a serious chunk o’ change there.

153. Anarch at 2:25 pm —
     Hopefully, this will only reflect upon my poor computer skills, and not my overall intelligence, but I haven’t got a clue about that italics business — even after your diagram. For now, I’ll try to get by. I’ve got a headache already. Maybe I need to eat lunch.

154. Anarch from 2:33/2:35 —
     Good enough.
     With Obama as our nominee, it will have to be a 50-state strategy.
     Excuse my concern/skepticism but the swing-state strategy is what’s won in recent election cycles — for Bush, two terms, and for Clinton, the two before that.
     But in the Age of New Progressivism — cited in the orignial post by publius — perhaps that is what will work.
     It will have to.

155. I haven’t got a clue about that italics business
     Let me take a shot at helping. ObWings does not to my knowledge have a user inferface for adding style tags. You have to write the html code to do so yourself. That’s the bad news. The good news is, some very simple html is not very hard to learn.
     The text you want to style has to have an opening tag preceeding it, and a closing tag following it. Opening tags consist of a pair of brackets < and >, with a letter code inside them. Closing tags are the same but the letter code has to have a right-leaning slash / before the letter code. So for example to add italics you would type (with no returns):
     < i >
     some text in italics
     < / i >
     Which if you take out all the returns comes out like this: some text in italics
     The trick is knowing what letter codes you use to get different effects. i for italics and b for boldface are pretty commonly used here.
     The other common piece of html code used hereabouts is a link to another webpage. This is coded in the following manner (again with no returns)
     < a h r e f = " http://news.google.com/ " >
     the name of my link which appears to the reader
     < / a >
     which resolves as:
     the name of my link which appears to the reader
     A couple of details are important in this more complex example: (1) the opening tag has two codes in it, the letter a, and the part which specifies the link, beginning with href= and then the actual URL address (which you can copy and paste in from the Address pane of the web page you are linking to) place inside a pair of quote marks ” “, (2) note that I left a space between the a and the href codes, (3) You can use white space inside the part between the opening tag and the closing tag, as seen here.
     A final note: when writing html tags by hand, it is easy to forget the closing tag, or to write it with the / missing so it doesn’t work. Use the preview button to check your results before posting and fix any errors.
     Hope that helps!

156. LeftTurn
     Yikes.
     And thanks.

157. Anarch from 2:33/2:35 —
     Good enough.
     With Obama as our nominee, it will have to be a 50-state strategy.
     Excuse my concern/skepticism but the swing-state strategy is what’s won in recent election cycles — for Bush, two terms, and for Clinton, the two before that.
     
     bedtimeforbonzo,
     There are a couple of reasons why I think the 50-state strategy is a good idea.
     – The swing state strategy has not actually won any elections for the Democrats since 1976. Bill Clinton won in both 1992 and 1996 with a plurality of votes, not a majority of votes, courtesy of Ross Perot. In the absence of a 3rd party candidate poised to siphon away a significant fraction of GOP votes, the swing state strategy doesn’t have a very good post-1968 track record (I use 1968 as a boundary because that is pegged by most writers I’m familiar with as the start of the GOP southern strategy).
     – A 50-state strategy maximizes the impact of the money advantage that Obama has over McCain this year. If the GOP is forced to spend money all over the country that leaves less for them to spend in the swing states. This theory assumes that paid political advertising is subject to saturation effects, i.e. there is a point of diminishing returns in advertising, and the trick is for our side to reach that level while forcing the GOP to fall short of it due to a lack of funds.
     – The advantage of pursuing a 50-state strategy with regard to down ticket races (House, Senate, state-level races) in non-swing states is enormous, especially in the US Senate. The GOP appears to be determined to filibuster everything Democratic in the Senate, which means 60 votes is the new majority. We need to pick up at least 7-8 seats in the Senate to get close to doing that. A swing-state dominated strategy will not be able to accommodate pouring large resources into all of the states which are liable for Democratic gains in the US Senate this year.
     – The 50-state strategy can be argued to pay dividends in governing after the election is over and won, by taking some of the edge off of political opposition even in states we don’t carry for Electoral College purposes. Remember how polarized our politics has become since the mid 1990’s – I think that the degree to which Democrats abandoned large sections of “flyover country” to the GOP helped to make that possible. The GOP will hopefully see the merits of compromise and comity if they are not leading from an entrenched bastion of regional support within which they have little to fear from local Democratic challengers.
     – The 50-state strategy provides more fertile ground for exposing contradictions in stated policy positions, because a pandering policy designed to appeal to voters in a few swing states may run against the preferences of voters in other states. Spreading the argument out over a larger body of competitive states should strengthen the position of whichever party has a more internally coherent set of policy prescriptions. I think that is the Democrats – as bitter as the nominating contest has been, it has been fought out over issues of personality more than ideology, and the Democratic party does not appear to me to be riven by deep ideological cleavages such as those separating neocons, theocons, big business interests, nativists, fiscal conservatives and libertarians on the GOP side. If the general election campaign can be focused on issues I think the Democrats have a big advantage in this election cycle, especially if the arguments are focused on the whole country rather than just the regional interests in a few swing states.

158. Aack!
     My link didn’t resolve correctly.
     I don’t know if preview mangled the html or what (I blame the god of demos).
     Let’s try again:
     this should be http://www.google.com, pasted in without the http colon slash slash in the address

159. Nope, my link example is still not working, despite that I’ve done this before numerous times. This must be one of those zen like things where it only works when you don’t think about it while you’re doing it. [buries head in html coding shame]. Someone else more competent please post an example that works.

160. LeftTurn/3:32 pm —
     Great post.
     Let’s hope it works — in fact, you make an Obama victory sound rather easily.
     By that, I mean, the 50-state strategy sounds fool-proof — especially when matched against McCain, who seems to have no strategy at the moment other than good, old-fashioned campaigning.
     And that didn’t work for my girl Hillary.

161. Point 1 you raise has merit. However, I think it would be foolish not to use primary voting patterns as a clue, at the very least, when looking ahead to the GE.
     Sure. But now that we’ve watered the point down to having primary results give us only a clue or a hint of potential problems, I don’t see what we’re supposed to take away. How should that affect our decision as a party? Obviously, the nominee should use all available data to target their GE campaign, but that’s going to happen no matter what.
     Point 2 — “I’ve often heard complaints by Clinton supporters that Obama voters are less likely to be ‘real’ Democrats: i.e., they’re more likely to be conservative crossovers or people new to politics” — is a complaint I will never make.
     On the contrary, I see Obama and McCain voters as to distinct entities. I really don’t see many McCain voters supporting one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate.
     Fair enough, you haven’t said that. On the other hand, Clinton’s surrogates have said that.
     Point 3 — I agree with you in that Obama can (and must) win over the votes of Clinton’s strong over-60 support. They will show up to the polls come November. Guaranteed. But will Obama’s 18-25ers? Probably. But who knows?
     Well, the 18-25ers will be the ones getting drafted to fight in McCain’s glorious war of national greatness and they’ll be the ones saddled with the massive debt needed to pay for it. I don’t see why we’re supposed to assume that Obama’s younger supporters are insufficiently committed compared to Clinton’s older supporters. I mean, I hate to point this out, but Clinton’s older supporters were not committed enough to get her the nomination. If we’re going to infer GE behavior from primary/caucus results, then it appears Clinton’s 60+ demographic is very problematic indeed.
     Also, the relevant comparison is not 60+ versus 18-25. The comparison is between over 60 and under 60. Obama is competitive enough between 25-60 that I don’t think one can fairly say that he has a persistent continuing problem with white working class voters in general. Look at the data here regarding Obama’s performance amongst voters making less than $50K, white catholics and protestants, no college, and union voters in OH, PA, and IN. In all of these groups, Obama does better over time. Clinton can’t even hold the lead in her strongest demographic.
     And Obama’s weak showing in Pennsylvania and Ohio, in particular, does suggest that he needs to work on his support among white blue-collar voters, not just white over-60 voters.
     See my point above. By my reading of the data, Obama significantly improved his performance among whites going from OH to PA.
     Point 4 — Florida — let’s face it, Obama, or Clinton, would have a challenge here.
     Agreed.
     (P.S. Turbulence, I will try and get back to you on those other issues you keep me reminding me about, when, hopefully, I get some time, outside of work, to give you more than just a passing response.)
     I appreciate it; take all the time you need.
     Excuse my concern/skepticism but the swing-state strategy is what’s won in recent election cycles — for Bush, two terms, and for Clinton, the two before that.
     You forgot to mention the big wins that Gore and Kerry achieved using the swing state strategy. On preview, I see TLTIABQ has addressed this much better.

162. Nope, my link example is still not working, despite that I’ve done this before numerous times.
     looks like you (or the site) dropped the “http:” off the front of your link’s URL.

163. Turbulence/3:56 pm —
     Those 18-25ers had damn well better come out and vote for Obama — unless they support Bush’s, and apparently what will be, McCain’s policy of pre-emptive war (a farce and an outrage, but the policy we will be saddled with, unless Obie One wins.)
     And no matter what material one seeks in regard to backing up any point about over-60 voters, there is only one point that matters:
     The over-60 bloc is one that the Dems need, and they will come out and vote, they always do.

164. Let’s hope it works — in fact, you make an Obama victory sound rather easily.
     Easy? I wish! Nothing will come easy. I just think the 50-state strategy has more to recommend it now that the Democrats are no longer in a defensive crouch just trying to hang on against a tide that seems to be running in favor of the GOP (c.f. the 1980s and 1990s). I think W has damaged the GOP brand for a while and now is not the time to be timid in our riposte.
     Also, I see the 50-state strategy as focused on what happens after the election. It is a strategy for governing, not just for winning elections.
     The lesson I think we need to learn from Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 and 1996 is that just winning an election isn’t good enough – you need to strive for a mandate to govern, even at the cost of losing a few election cycles, and keep honing your message until the electorate is responsive on a large enough scale to make it possible to get something done while in office. That was the lesson conservatives learned from the Goldwater debacle in 1964 and it served them very well.
     I think the 50-state strategy on the Democratic side is a very healthy development and I hope that the Republicans will respond in kind (once the sane conservatives take back their party). If you read the Federalist papers for example, there is a very clear theme of a working democracy having to strike a balance between majority rule and the rights and interests of the numerical minority. Having both major political parties compete across the entire country is a manifestation of a healthy balance between these two factors IMHO, whereas I see it as unhealthy if one or both parties are restricted to regional ghettos. Sectional gerrymandering is a sign of an unhealthy democracy in my view.

165. bedtimeforbonzo,
     I’m confused. The younger voters have a larger incentive to vote effectively in the GE than 60+ voters. Also, the younger voters have already demonstrated the ability to turn out in the primary/caucus process; I mean, if you think a group of people is flaky and will only turn out for at most one election, wouldn’t it be the primary rather than the GE?

166. TLTIA: The 50-state strategy provides more fertile ground for exposing contradictions in stated policy positions, because a pandering policy designed to appeal to voters in a few swing states may run against the preferences of voters in other states.
     Absolutely. This is, in some sense, the core part of Rove’s 50% + 1 strategy: by keeping the faithful so deep in their back pocket that they would toe the party line regardless, the Republicans could hammer at the swing states as much as they liked. Why not? They only needed to convince half of those in the swing states — a mere fraction of America as a whole — that they were less bad than the Democrats. Talk about the point of the spear.
     To be more blunt: for several years, there were many states in which a Republican — no matter how hypocritical or, frankly, insane — was a priori preferable to a Democrat. This let the Republicans do and say almost anything they pleased in order to get elected. By making inroads into the Republican strongholds, however, it forces the Republicans to play defense across the board… and not only do they not have the resources to do that properly, it will bring the GOP contradictions right into their heartland. [Not to mention forcing the GOP faithful to confront real, live Democrats instead of their Republican caricatures.] All of a sudden that Ohio pandering, say, is gonna get play in Alabama, and they might well not like what they’re hearing.
     It reminds me of an old saw about lying. Lying is harder than telling the truth because you have to remember what it was that you said… and, more importantly here, if you’re telling different lies to different people, god help you if they start talking to each other.
     [Those of you who watched Survivor this season, you’ll know what I’m talking about. Dumbest. Move. Ever.]

167. ThatLeftTurn, this may be a stupid question but I’m curious: what does your name mean? What’s ABQ?

168. Turb,
     I would prefer not to unpack it any more explicity than to say that it’s a multi-layered self-deprecating joke, referencing where I live and my political leanings combined together in the form of a well known Bugs Bunny saying involving mistaken navigational directions (e.g., found here).

169. ThatLeftTurn,
     Ah, that’s fine. I didn’t mean to pressure you, I was just curious. Lord knows the world could use more Bugs Bunny references.

170. I originally misread your handle as That Left Turn In BBQ, which meant you were the most delicious commenter at Obsidian Wings. Alas, how things have changed.

171. I could go for some good BBQ, right now.
     And couldn’t the world use more Tom and Gerry, too?
     That’s the great thing about being the father of 9-year-old: You get a chance to re-live things you may have missed or not appreciated the first time around, like Tom and Gerry, lightning bugs and the foam on a good A&W root beer.

172. Turbulence/4:34 pm —
     Don’t be confused. The point is a rather simple one: If the 18-25ers continue their enthusiastic support for Senator Obama, great. If they show up to the polls in November, even better. And, sure, why doubt that they will?
     Only, if I had to bet on a 19-year-old running late to class, making plans for Friday night, and perfecting the art of texting on their cell phone while driving, and God knows what else 19-year-olds prioritize these days — if I had to chose between said 19-year-old and the 69-year-old, lifelong voter who wants to make sure the their Social Security check keeps coming every month, call me crazy — or, yes, cynical — but I’d take the 69-year-old every time.
     Don’t get me wrong. Obama bringing so many young voters into the fold — and I imagine Clinton has brought a few, too — is a great thing. Let’s just hope they stay in the fold.

173. In regard to the 50-state strategy mentioned in some of the posts above, it is sound and strong, democratic — and, let’s hope, Democratic — at its core.
     And it would seem to work best w/ a “movement” candidate such as Senator Obama.
     Nevertheless, whether it was/is Obama or Clinton, wasn’t this supposed to be the ABB Election?
     Anyone But Bush.
     My bet, in the end, it still will be.
     Then again, Bush did get a second term.

174. Turb wrote: “I mean, if you think a group of people is flaky and will only turn out for at most one election, wouldn’t it be the primary rather than the GE?”
     I think you meant the other way around. You’d expect the flakes to vote in the GE, not the primary. After all, primary dates (and registration deadlines) are all over the calendar, but you don’t have to be a wonky activist to know the general is in November.

175. but I’d take the 69-year-old every time.
     BTB, please don’t go to Vegas! Even if one spots you an additional decade+, 20-40 make up 14% of the population, over 64 make up 7%. link

176. Japonicus —
     The original discussion centered around these voting blocs: 18-25 vs. over-60, which would probably make those percentages much closer.
     Moreover, those population percentages don’t mean much vs. what means most — i.e., what percentage of those 20-40 vs. 64-and-over that actually vote. Those are the only percentages that really count.
     And, again, the AARP crowd is a very strong, reliable voting bloc.

177. Not to snark out here BTB, but you made an anecdotal connection linking a hypothetical 19-year old, doing 19 year old sorts of things to success in the general election. That seems to be a stretch. One reason I’m an Obama supporter (and this support has been confirmed by the HRC campaign in recent weeks), is that his approach strikes me as one that will stand the Democratic party in good stead in the long term.
     There was some research floating around maybe 6 months ago about how voting preferences created while people are young are long lasting. Fighting over the tail-end of the demographic rather than the front end seems to be a rather poor strategic decision. (I’m mid 40’s so this shouldn’t be considered as disparaging the demographics I hope to pass thru, this is simply an observation) So discussion of the 18-25 demographic should include discussion of how that demographic will influence the demographic that follows it.
     Of course, if you were here, in Japan, with negative population growth, it might work out better, but given what I understand about the current population demographics in the US, it’s a losing strategy. Furthermore, the politics of resentment is going to devour itself, as witnessed by the Republican schizophrenia on immigration.

178. I know that the bottom line is votes, but one of the advntages of Obama’s appeal to the young is that they work. they doorbell. They canvass. They do all the crap that I basolutely cannot bring myself to do any more.
     ANother advantage: getting the young to go Democrat is an investiment in the future.

179. “Someone else more competent please post an example that works.”
     Typepad about ten months or so ago stopped allowing the HTML that allows posting of HTML symbols. This is another bit of Typepad’s brokenness; around the same time, they stripped out everyone’s email address from appearing under their name, which I think is absolutely deadly to community, since people can no longer write each other directly unless they already know each other, or make public arrangements, and that just kills a lot of potential email friendships and more.
     There are some other really destructive changes Typepad made at the same time that I’ll remember in the morning.
     As regards explaining how to link, best one can do here now is use the vertical trick, as Anarch did, or link to an old example.
     And, again, a list of HTML tags. All one needs to know is how to link, and to use “i” for italics, and “blockquote” to blockquote:

     If you’re feeling more ambitious, “b” to bold.

     More than that is gravy. You can ignore the rest of the tags, unless you feel experimental.
     I’m a complete HTML idiot, but knowing that much has gotten me by. It’s not hard complicated.
     Just don’t misspell your tags; HTML won’t forgive you. (As it should be!)

180. “What’s ABQ?”
     Albuquerque, New Mexico.
     “And couldn’t the world use more Tom and Gerry, too?”
     Only if they’re at least as amusing as these kids.
     I prefer either Warner Brothers, or these guys, myself. Hanna-Barbera, not so much. But that’s just me.
     Sorry I’m too tired to be more substantive tonight; I hope to have a bit more time on the interwebs tomorrow.
     Er, in the morning, anyway.

181. “If I could be so bold as to make a constructive criticism of your style, it would be that I think attracting ‘new blood’ is good for a blog and sometimes it seems to me that you come on rather more strongly with new people than I personally would feel comfortable doing, and that perhaps you might want to consider letting those of us who are new benefit from more gentle criticism and a longer learning curve than you tend to dish out, but obviously YMMV.”
     You’re likely right.
     For what it’s worth, though, since ObWi formats the ID of who a comment is from below the comment, I commonly start formulating a response to something that triggers a response in me before I get to the end, and have any idea who the author is, unless their style is instantly recognizable (as is the case with a few regulars).
     And I’ve deliberately tried to keep it that way precisely so I’m minimizing my bias either towards or against anyone, and thus doing my best to simply respond to comments, rather than personalities (albeit obviously without complete consistency).
     I like to think that I’m mostly — obviously not entirely — as hard and easy on everyone as on almost anyone (who isn’t, y’know, a troll, or someone I’ve just concluded can’t read very well), and that I’m mostly as hard on Hilzoy as I was on Charles, as I was on Edward, as I was on Katherine, as I was on Von, and so on, regardless of political stance or personality.
     Again, I stress that I’m obviously quite imperfect about that, but the fact is also that it’s relatively rare for me to significantly disagree with Hilzoy, say, rather than in nitpicking an odd phrase, or pointing out a trivial lapse (like, say, not recognizing what Dana Milbank’s Washington Sketch column is).
     So while you’re quite correct that it would be far more encouraging to newcomers if I cut them slack, that would require me to first start trying to notice when I’m replying to a newcomer, rather than just trying to respond more or less similarly to everyone I’m responding to, which is to say, to respond to their content, and not to whose name appears at the bottom of their comment.
     And I like to think that I’m honoring newcomers by treating them with the same respect and expectations I try to more or less treat everyone else — which is to say, if they say something smart, I admire it, and rarely have something to say back, and if they say something questionable, I question it, and if they say something I think is dumb, I question it, and may poke at it.
     How sharply I poke/question is sometimes as much a matter of my variable mood, and stress level, alas, as it is a matter of just how dopey the comment seems to be (IMO, of course).
     (At present, for instance, it turns out that I’m not going to be able to afford an apt of my own for some months, under present circumstances, and thus will be staying with someone for a while, thus producing a fair amount of stress for the next few months; plus longer term stuff, and physical ailments, and so on.)
     So my treating newcomers differently probably isn’t going to happen unless I’ve really paid attention, and noticed someone is a newcomer, and noticed it before I’ve already written my responding comment. Which will only be occasionally, at best.
     But now you know why.
     Huge thanks to all those who complimented me above, to Turb, TLT, and Felix. It really made me feel good, and I really appreciate it. It’s very kind of you all.
     (Although clearly you are all simply immensely perceptive and wise people, to come to such insightful and correct conclusions; kudos!)
     😉
     “I could go for some good BBQ, right now.”
     I have to thank the person who warned me on my blog the other week about Carolina “BBQ.”
     If only I’d remembered when I was at that shack, to order the burger. But now I’ll never forget: no, vinegar is not “bbq” in my book, thanks.

182. “In the interests of keeping the thread as fact-based as possible, it should be pointed out that Edward was a mid-season addition to the roster — originally it was just Moe in right field, Katherine in left, and von in center.”
     Entirely correct, of course. I was being absentminded due to tiredness when I mistakenly said Edward was there at the start.
     (Hey, if anyone ever accuses me of treating righties more harshly than lefties, just ask Edward if he thinks that’s so. :-))

183. Farber from 9:19 am/5-13-08:
     “And I like to think that I’m honoring newcomers by treating them with the same respect and expectations I try to more or less treat everyone else . . .”
     Thank you.
     Your consistency is refreshing.
     (Long live Tom and Jerry — and Simon and Garfunkle. And Astaire and Rogers, Ruth and Gehrig, Felix and Oscar, Bogey and Bacall, Lewis and Martin, Montana and Rice, Abbott and Costello:)

184. japonicus from 9:08 pm/5-12-08 —
     Bottom line, I think we both agree: The more young voters Obama attracts, the better. And a side effect to all this youth in his campaign, I suspect, is that they should energize old geezers like, although, at 45, I’m not old or a geezer just yet, I hope.
     wonkie from 9:11 pm/5-12-08 —
     How true. The average — involved — Obama youth must have done more doorbelling and canvassing for their candidate than I did for mine, which is to say: none. My contribution to Senator Clinton was “merely” three $25 donations.

185. “My contribution to Senator Clinton was ‘merely’ three $25 donations.”
     How do you feel about Senator Clinton screwing small businesses across America by refusing to pay bills?
     I’m also curious how you feel about the fact that Senator Clinton has a personal fortune of over $100 million dollars, but feels it’s appropriate to take the money of less fortunate people in order to continue a campaign based on the false claim that she somehow can win the nomination, when that has clearly not been mathematically possible for months? Is that a sound left position? Is it “fighting for the ordinary American” to do that?
     I’m just curious how you see these things; I’m fine with you not having a problem with it.

186. Farber at 5:16 pm —
     Campaign debt is a nature of the beast. I’m sure Clinton isn’t the first presidential candidate to run up a doozy. And while it definitely sheds a negative light on her, I understand Senator Obama — in getting her to drop out of the race (eventually) — may pay off that debt, and those small businesses, through the appropriate backchannels, of course.
     Me, I don’t understand why you keep bringing up the Clintons’ personal worth. If blue-collar voters like me want to donate our hard-earned cash to her campaign, that’s our business.
     Oh, yes:
     I’m curious: What do you think about Senator Obama breaking his pledge — for the upcoming GE — to not to use public financing in the general. (Of course, he made that pledge before realizing his campaign was going to be a cash cow.)

187. “Campaign debt is a nature of the beast. I’m sure Clinton isn’t the first presidential candidate to run up a doozy.”
     Sure. My question wasn’t about running up campaign debt. Myt question was in regard to the candidate, someone who has acquired something over 100+ million dollars, asking low income and middle income people to give her money, while not paying any debts to small businesses.
     “If blue-collar voters like me want to donate our hard-earned cash to her campaign, that’s our business.”
     That answers my question. Thanks.
     “I’m curious: What do you think about Senator Obama breaking his pledge — for the upcoming GE — to not to use public financing in the general.”
     I’m unaware of any such pledge. If you have a link to such a pledge, I’d certainly be interested in reading it.

188. I’m curious: What do you think about Senator Obama breaking his pledge — for the upcoming GE — to not to use public financing in the general.
     you mean the one that was based on McCain using public funding, too ?
     i think McCain took care of that one.

189. Farber/7:39 pm
     I’m sure it wouldn’t be too hard to google.
     I’ve heard of this pledge by Senator Obama not to accept public financing for the GE reported numerous times on CNN and MSNBC, followed by the obvious next-step speculation:
     What will he do when called on the carpet by McCain and the Republicans for breaking it?
     Obviously, Obama isn’t about to turn his back on public financing now that it’s fueled what appears to be a victory to the Democratic nomination.
     That’s one pledge — again, reported widely by CNN and MSNBC — that I’m sure he will have no trouble breaking.

190. CLEEK at 7:45 —
     McCain has not yet declared whether he will use public financing for the general election.
     My guess:
     If Obama keeps his pledge not use any, so will McCain.
     FARBER —
     P.S. This may be poor blogging etiquette but I haven’t got a clue as how to provide a link — remember, I am the same bozo who can’t italize.
     Anyway, I don’t see the need to provide a link to something that has been widely – stress: widely — reported in the MSM.

191. bedtimeforbonzo,
     Let me give you a hint as to what I think Gary’s up to: he wants you to provide a link because in so doing, you’ll realize that Obama didn’t make the promise you seem to think he made. Now, obviously, since Obama uses polysyllabic words, we cannot expect the cable news media to properly report what he did or did not promise.
     Also, I suspect that what Cleek is referring to is that right now, McCain has mutilated the spirit and possibly the letter of the campaign finance law. If you want more info, look in the recent archives for a post that hilzoy made that goes into detail. The upshot here is that McCain’s refusal to use public financing in a legal manner eliminates all sorts of obligations that other candidates might have made that were conditioned on McCain taking public financing.
     Finally, you can include links without HTML. Just copy and past the URL directly into your comment.

192. I thought I wasn’t supposed to read minds here, Turbulence.
     No matter.
     I can’t be preoccupied with what the hell Gary is up to every time I want to make a point or respond to one — if he’s got ulterior motives, that’s his problem.
     And if he’s smarter than the rest of us, fine.
     But as a former journalist — albeit, in “the toy department” (otherwise known in the newspaper business as sports) — perhaps I put a little more faith in such news outlets as CNN and MSNBC than you and Mr. Farber.

193. Attack the message, not the messenger.
     Are we all a little too afraid here to think — the horror! — that Saint Obama may actually break a promise?

194. I’ve heard of this pledge by Senator Obama not to accept public financing for the GE reported numerous times on CNN and MSNBC, followed by the obvious next-step speculation:
     What will he do when called on the carpet by McCain and the Republicans for breaking it?
     You claim to be concerned about a “pledge” which you literally know nothing about. Before you go off hammering people about Obama’s pledge, couldn’t you take 30 seconds to figure out what he allegedly pledged? Is that really too much for you?
     Apparently it is. This is what Obama said:

     If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election

     Did he pledge to take public financing no matter what? No. Did he pledge to take public financing if the republican nominee did? No. The only thing he pledged to do was work with the nominee to preserve a publicly financed election. But you know what? McCain has already demonstrated that he’s happy to break the campaign finance law. Only an idiot would make a campaign finance agreement with McCain now: he’s already proven that he can’t be trusted to abide by campaign finance agreements.
     Also, I hate to break it to you, but no matter what any Dem nominee does, McCain will be calling them to the carpet. They’ll make stuff up as needed.
     But as a former journalist — albeit, in “the toy department” (otherwise known in the newspaper business as sports) — perhaps I put a little more faith in such news outlets as CNN and MSNBC than you and Mr. Farber.
     You must not have read much about the Iraq war if you put faith in CNN and MSNBC.

195. I thought I wasn’t supposed to read minds here, Turbulence.

     Well, obviously you’re not very good on reading comprehension.
     There was a plain request, repeated several times, you’ve managed to avoid.
     Impresses me not.

196. Turbulence — 9:00 pm
     Never once did I say I was concerned about Obama breaking this pledge.
     That’s on him — he’s the one who should be concerned.
     And let’s not get worse than the Republicans here — putting the onus on McCain.
     Why not hold your own candidate accountable first?
     You know damn well Obama will not work aggressively to preserve a publicly financed campaign — not when he outspent Hillary in recent states by 4 to 1 in ad money, not when he can anticipate doing roughly the same against McCain.
     Frankly, he’d be an idiot not to break this pledge — and give up his internet cash cow.
     Let’s just call a spade a spade — because if it was Hillary breaking this pledge, you’d scream from the heavens. Or at least Gary would remind me of her and Bill’s $100 million net worth.
     By the way, in regard to that $100 million net worth, good for them. Obama — who hasn’t even been elected president — is 1/10 the way there. And good for him. We do live in a capitalistic society, don’t we.
     And good for Hillary for whipping up on Saint Obama today in West Virginia, yet another blue-collar state he failed to win!
     Didn’t even come close.
     Even after the race is allegedly over.
     Oops. Somebody forgot to tell those hillbillies in West Virginia. Well, good for them: They exercised their right to vote.
     Or what? Do we call the race now, and take that away from them? Let’s tell Kentucky to stay home, too — now and in the general. Hell, while we’re at it, let’s tell Florida and Michigan to stay home, Saint Freaking Obama doesn’t need them, either.
     Does he?
     And my goodness, me and the good folks in West Virginia and Kentucky and Pennsylvania and Ohio and Indiana and New York and Michigan — all of us blue-collar workers that so many elitist Democrats snub their noses at — have the audacity to get our news from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC, maybe even FOX News. Well, we’re part of the party, too, dammit. And the sooner you learn that the better. Everyone in this party may not pick up the paper or read a blog but they work hard, raise good families and shouldn’t be laughed at by the Obamabots.
     Or just as they turned into Reagan Democrats, you’ll see ’em turn into McCain Democrats.
     Do you want that?

197. But as a former journalist — albeit, in “the toy department” (otherwise known in the newspaper business as sports) — perhaps I put a little more faith in such news outlets as CNN and MSNBC than you and Mr. Farber.
     bedtimeforbonzo,
     In the best judgement of myself and I suspect a number of other commentators on this board as well, the US domestic TV networks (both cable and conventional) are not a particularly effective or trustworthy source for news regarding complex and/or controversial topics.
     This is one of the reasons why I agree with Gary that it is very important to post links or citations to your sources of information whenever possible.
     IMHO, this is not for the purposes of trying to “catch you out”, or to try to score cheap debating points, but rather because one of the values which blogging can (note my use of a conditional here) add is that this medium allows us to collaborate together in casting a wider net for information and working together to sift and evaluate disparate sources in search of something which hopefully will be a closer approximation to the truth than what comes out of the TV on a regular basis.
     You can help with this, too, if you choose to participate by citing your sources.
     With regard to the cable news networks, I’ll make an analogy which hopefully relates to your sports background (and FYI I do not at all look down on sports journalism, in fact IMHO it is often more factually grounded than much of what passes for “hard news”, since it is kind of difficult to fake things like sports scores and statistics without being found out pretty quickly):
     How trustworthy would you regard the sports coverage on TV if there were no truly specialized entity like ESPN which lives or dies by the quality and reliability of their sports coverage, and if the major networks were all to some degree or another entangled in conflicts of interest with major sports franchises – say for example that ABC was partially owned by the New England Patriots, MSNBC was partially owned by the Dallas Cowboys, and the New York Yankees owned a partial stake in Fox News? Would that give you confidence that all relevant info was making it into their sports coverage?
     We have a similar problem with our news networks IMHO, many of which are partially or wholly owned by large multinational corporations, or by individuals like Rupert Murdoch who have an explicit ideological agenda, or even absent these other factors at best they can be said to have a built in interest in manufacturing controversy to stir up ratings when none is to be found naturally.
     I don’t know whether you agree with me or not that we have a problem here. If you do agree, then do you see how this reinforces the point which Gary makes with some frequency (i.e., not just when responding to you) that it is important to cite sources so they can be vetted?

198. Left Turn —
     Perhaps.
     I am just not that much of an elitist — or, for that matter, that much of a “conspiracy nut” — to completely distrust the MSM, such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, The Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Philadelphia Daily News, Esquire, to name a few sources from which I regulary get my news.
     Having worked in the industry, I have a little more faith than it seems several of the debaters here do in the hard-working folks at these media outlets — and I’m not just talking about the pretty blow-dried faces you see on the tube.
     I am talking about the editors and producers, copy readers, and the other line workers who take pride in their work and do a much better job than you folks apparently give them for doing.
     In fact, I would argue that, as a whole, most media members that I have met and worked with have less of an agenda than most folks blogging on this very space.

199. bedtimeforbozo,
     Um…OK. That’s an…interesting response. I’ll try to be brief:
     1. You claimed that Obama made a pledge “to use public financing in the general”. You provide no cite to this pledge because it doesn’t exist. Obama never pledged anything like that.
     2. You claimed that you learned of this non-existent pledge from the cable news networks and then acted offended when I suggested that these institutions are not good at covering complex issues or nuance or truth. Well, you got your news from them and you got it wrong. I thank you for working so hard to prove my point.
     3. While it may be fun to insult Gary or me or whoever, it is also sometimes good to acknowledge that you wouldn’t have been so ignorant if you had spent 30 seconds using teh google.
     4. Public financing of campaigns is a means to an end, namely reducing the influence of big-money organizations in politics. I care more about achieving the goal than any particular jury rigged compromise system funded by check boxes that only 1 in 10 taxpayers select. This isn’t getting worse than Republicans: McCain’s flagrant abuse of the public financing system is against the law. Nothing Obama has done is against the law. You can’t compare these things.
     Let’s just call a spade a spade — because if it was Hillary breaking this pledge, you’d scream from the heavens. Or at least Gary would remind me of her and Bill’s $100 million net worth.
     If Clinton was breaking a pledge that doesn’t exist, I really think I wouldn’t care. I’ve been very clear about why I don’t think Clinton would be a good President and when the media has thrown pointless hyped up stories about her, I’ve ignored them because I already have good issue-based reasons for not liking Clinton.
     I don’t begrudge Clinton her $100 million. But the hypocrisy of calling her opponent an elitist when he’s by far the poorest candidate in the race while she is sitting on a $100 million pile of cash rankles.
     Why not hold your own candidate accountable first?
     I’ve complained about a bunch of things that I think Obama has done that are stupid policy. Heck, my wife yelled at him and debated with him at a fundraiser a few months ago. Just because I think this particular issue is unbelievably stupid doesn’t mean that I think Obama is perfect. If you want me to list policy areas where I think Obama is wrong, just let me know.
     They exercised their right to vote.
     Yay! Good for them! So, are they going to vote Democratic in november? As far as I know, everyone (I’m thinking of Mark Kleiman and John Cole, but I could more specific references if you’d like) believes that WV is solidly going for McCain no matter who the Dem nominee is. So, besides making people in WV feel good about themselves, what has been accomplished? I mean, tonight Clinton has gained about as many delegates as Obama has over the last few days. That was an awful lot of effort to not change the situation at all.
     By the way, have you ever complained about nomination battles effectively ending before every single state has voted in previous years? Or is this objection one that you’re only willing to make for Clinton?
     Or what? Do we call the race now, and take that away from them? Let’s tell Kentucky to stay home, too — now and in the general. Hell, while we’re at it, let’s tell Florida and Michigan to stay home, Saint Freaking Obama doesn’t need them, either.
     I don’t see why we should do anything. It was virtually impossible for Clinton to get the nomination before and it is still virtually impossible now. Having KY and OR vote won’t change that. I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about regarding FL and MI, but the flying spittle is kind of freaking me out. Maybe you could explain your ideas in complete sentences?
     And my goodness, me and the good folks in West Virginia and Kentucky and Pennsylvania and Ohio and Indiana and New York and Michigan — all of us blue-collar workers that so many elitist Democrats snub their noses at — have the audacity to get our news from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC, maybe even FOX News. Well, we’re part of the party, too, dammit. And the sooner you learn that the better. Everyone in this party may not pick up the paper or read a blog but they work hard, raise good families and shouldn’t be laughed at by the Obamabots.
     I had no idea that sports writers were considered blue collar.
     I don’t know about you, but many of the blue collar folk that I know look at cable news with contempt.
     Who on earth do you think is saying that some group of people aren’t part of the democratic party? Who on earth do you think is laughing at anyone? Why are you arguing so forcefully with this voice in your head? Maybe you should see a physician…no, better make that a nurse, they’re closer to blue collar.

200. Mr. Reading Comprehension (a.k.a. gwangung)/ 9:26 pm —
     Thank you, thank you, thank you.
     Just when I was beginning to think it was time to throw in the towel for Senator Clinton — being “enlightened” by some of the posters pn this very space — you came along, and not a minute too soon, and challenged my reading comprehension.
     Thank you, thank you, thank you.
     I just read my credit card well enough to send the fourth of my standard $25 contributions to my girl Hillary’s campaign.
     What better way to celebrate her 2-to-1 victory tonight in West Virginia.
     Seems I read those credit-card numbers pretty good.
     Hillary even texted my phone, even emailed me back, thanking me.
     Read her words of thanks pretty well, too — and even comprehended the fact that she wouldn’t mind another $25.
     Obama hasn’t wrapped this up, yet, Mr. Comprehension.
     Turn on any TV tonight.
     Obama 1,881.
     Clinton 1,713.
     That’s the delegate count. Seems he — or she — will need the help of the supers.
     Get back to me after he hits 2,025.

201. Turbulence —
     I said “former” sportswriter.
     Seems we could all better our Reading Comprehension.
     Worked as a journalist for 20 years before giving it up and going blue collar. Is that OK with you?

202. Turb —
     P.S. I have a very good doctor, thank you. As far as I know, don’t need to see him until December, a week or so before I turn 46, for my annual physical.
     I read minds, you diagnose physical/mental??? ailments over the computer.
     Very good.

203. Turb —
     P.S. I have a very good doctor, thank you. As far as I know, don’t need to see him until December, a week or so before I turn 46, for my annual physical.
     I read minds, you diagnose physical/mental??? ailments over the computer.
     Very good.

204. Turbulence —
     One last thing before having a little Merlot with the wife, walking the dog and going to bed:
     You just wrote off West Virginia.
     I thought Obama’s 50-state strategy didn’t write off any states.

205. bedtimeforbonzo,
     My complaint about the media was specifically limited to cable news networks. I don’t understand why you would assume that cable news networks includes “The Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Philadelphia Daily News, Esquire”. Look, you seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder. I make a comment about how I don’t think cable news accurately presents non-trivial issues and you assume that I’m saying that you personally are an idiot and that every single source of media you consume is stupid.
     Having worked in the industry, I have a little more faith than it seems several of the debaters here do in the hard-working folks at these media outlets — and I’m not just talking about the pretty blow-dried faces you see on the tube.
     That’s good, because the people on tv are pretty fracking stupid. Look, I suspect that the sharpest political commentators on cable tv right now are two comedians on Comedy Central and Olbermann, the former sports writer. Those three guys are great, but that’s really not a good sign. Lord knows the political commentators are really crappy at either being intentionally funny or analyzing sports.
     I am talking about the editors and producers, copy readers, and the other line workers who take pride in their work and do a much better job than you folks apparently give them for doing.
     I don’t know or care about how good a job various line workers at newspapers do. Most of their work doesn’t effect the quality of the reporting and analysis. I mean, I’m sure that the guys who drive the distribution trucks for the Mooney-owned Washington Times are super hard working, but that doesn’t change the fact that their paper is owned by a lunatic who thinks he’s literally the king of the world. There’s only so much that good copy editors can do to shave the edge of that kind of insanity.
     I actually don’t know a lot of stuff, but I have friends that do. I have friends that work in economics, chemistry, and the federal government. What my friends tell me is that many of the stories in their areas of expertise that they read in newspapers and see on tv news are completely wrong. I’ve noticed this is true for my own area of expertise. And we’re not talking rocket science here. I really do think that journalists working for the New York Times writing about the economy should be expected to understand this simple fact: inflation is real and that means you can’t compare prices across a decade meaningfully. Every single person living on social security understands that fact — it is not a difficult concept. If the media bothered to explain that anyone with a degree in chemistry can build chemical weapons in their kitchen starting from universally available materials, the debate about invading Iraq would have gone differently. And I think even the most blue collar people in the country can understand the implications of that.
     In any event, there’s no need to take my word for it. The market place has spoken pretty decisively: print newspapers are dying. Every year, the average age of newspaper subscribers goes up by more than one. Subscription rates are declining all over the country.
     In fact, I would argue that, as a whole, most media members that I have met and worked with have less of an agenda than most folks blogging on this very space.
     YMMV, but I think that having an agenda is a lot less important than knowing what the frack you’re talking about, being able to add necessary context, and being willing to admit mistakes. I think hilzoy, publius, Katherine, Eric Martin, and Andrew are a lot better in those regards than the great majority of media people I see. But you’re right: all of them have “agendas”, i.e., they have values.
     For example, Katherine is convinced that crushing the testicles of small children in order to coerce their parents to provide information they don’t have is wrong. Hilzoy seems to think supporting people who commit genocide is the sort of thing that should cause decent people to shun you. Eric is fixated on this bizarre notion that bombing people may not be compatible with helping them. Those crazy bloggers and their insane agendas! If only they could compare with the intellectual and moral seriousness of Thomas Friedman and his “Suck. On. This.” brilliance. Alas, so short do they fall. Le sigh.
     Read her words of thanks pretty well, too — and even comprehended the fact that she wouldn’t mind another $25.
     I’m glad. When Clinton does concede the nomination, I’m sure you’ll feel especially good knowing that you gave your hard earned blue collar dollars to help a woman who’s got $100 million sitting in the bank. I bet that text message thanking you will make it all worthwhile. If I wasted money like that, I’d have to buy off my wife’s forgiveness with booze as well.
     You just wrote off West Virginia. I thought Obama’s 50-state strategy didn’t write off any states.
     1. I’m not Obama; I’m better looking.
     2. The 50-state strategy involves competing in as many places as you can so that you force the republicans to blow their cash. It does not require that you assume that we can win every single state.

206. bedtimeforbonzo,
     I think you misunderstand me. I’m not saying that we should discount altogether those newspapers and other sources you mention, rather that I think it pays to cast as wide a trawl as possible, and compare and contrast what we get, and when using the internet as a content aggregation tool it helps (for me at least) to leverage discussions forums like this to get feedback from other people rather than having to go it alone in evaluating sources. Of course your mileage may vary.
     One other note: you have been using the word “elitist” in a number of your posts. I’m not sure what it is that you are trying to communicate to others when using that word. What I am reading from the way you have been using it, is that “elitist” is a code word for the idea that another person who is different from you and does not belong to your group (however that is defined) is on that basis probably not a good person like you are, instead they are somehow bad (perhaps because there is something bad about excessive amounts of education or professional advancement which changes people so they aren’t like ordinary people anymore, in a bad way), and thus your ideas should count for more since they reflect the thinking of “real people”, and their ideas should not count for as much, being tainted.
     I may not be interpreting your usage of this word correctly, but that it how it comes out sounding to me. If you mean to use it as something other than a quick and easy insult intended to negate the opinions of people who don’t agree with you, it would be nice to know that.
     I see on preview that the tone of the comments in this thread has become rather heated. I hope that we can have more productive discussions on other occasions. I’ll end by stating that I don’t think your views should be valued less than those of other people, but neither do I think that they should be given greater weight. That is my understanding (in part) of what democracy is about. We all have equal voices, and disputing with each other should be an affirmation of that egalitarian concept, not the negation of it. There is a very big difference between being challenged to defend your point of view (with logic and evidence if necessary) and being told that you do not have the right to hold those views or that they are invalid merely because of what group you belong to. Yes, to the 1st part (the challenge), No, to the 2nd part (the dismissal) – that is my answer.
     Good night to one and all, I’m heading for bed.

207. Ouch!

Comments are closed.