The Vast Majority Of Working Class Americans Will Not Vote For Senator Obama In The Fall
As self appointed TPM communications director for the Clinton campaign, I'd like to correct and expand on her comments to USA Today.
What Senator Clinton intended to say was simply that she believes Senator Obama has not connected with working class Americans in the way he needs to connect with them to win the general election in the Fall.
The vast majority of working class Americans will not vote for Senator Obama in the general election.
Usually, candidates don't win elections if they can't connect with a majority of those working class voters, but Senator Obama may be an exception to that rule.
It would be helpful if Senator Obama were to explain how he intends to win the general election without the support of working class voters.
What Senator Clinton intended to say was simply that she believes Senator Obama has not connected with working class Americans in the way he needs to connect with them to win the general election in the Fall.
The vast majority of working class Americans will not vote for Senator Obama in the general election.
Usually, candidates don't win elections if they can't connect with a majority of those working class voters, but Senator Obama may be an exception to that rule.
It would be helpful if Senator Obama were to explain how he intends to win the general election without the support of working class voters.
Advertisement
According to a Gallup poll done today, Obama's support among white voters is similar to that of John Kerry's in 2004. He can only improve on that. And he does better against McCain with college grads and post graduates than Kerry did with Bush. So, I wouldn't worry too much Billy, Obama will seal the deal with blue collar voters. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/Obamas-Support-Similar-Kerrys-2004.aspx
May 9, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the information. We don't think of working class voters as white or black. We think working class voters of all backgrounds face similar problems making a better life for their families. Those problems can be almost insurmountable when artificial barriers are placed in the way. As Senator Obama pointed out so eloquently in Philadelphia, we still have work to do to make sure every child in America can realize the unlimited potential they are born with. That's why early childhood education and universal health insurance are so important to Senator Clinton. And why it's so important that we continue and extend the work of Dr. King, LBJ, Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton that has been interrupted by the long nightmare of the Bush administration. And that's why we must do everything we can to make sure that nightmare is not prolonged by John McCain.
May 10, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me, but you may not think of working class voters as black and white but your candidate sure does. I do believe that the majority of Americans have picked up on that. Anyway, Senator Obama is very much aware of the problems that working Americans face because that's where he's come from. As he's said, working people led him to politics not the other way around. So, as soon as Hillary gracefully exits, he'll be able to start making his case with these voters and build up on the 40% of support that he already has.
May 10, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
As soon as Hillary exits? So you acknowledge Obama can't steal her 60% while she's still in the race? Interesting.
You say he hasn't started making his case with these voters. What's he waiting for? I thought he has been making his case to these voters all along. They just don't want to go with his case vs. Hillary's.
The question is, why? This is what Dems need to find the answer to. Because if these voters aren't going to Obama in droves now, what makes any party leader think these voters are going to come over to Obama after Hillary drops out?
May 10, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you didn't look at the gallup poll above. The forty percent is in comparison with John McCain. It's Obama's number with non-college graduates 43% to John McCain's 47%. With college grads Obama has more support than McCain 50%to 44% and does even better with post college grads 57%to 38%. Obama's numbers with college and post college graduates are better than John Kerry's were in 2004 when he finished the race. Obama will do even better with the non college graduates because they'll realize that Democrats are better for their pocketbooks and their livelihoods than John McCain and the Republicans. Clinton does better with these voters because she's a freaking Clinton. I highly doubt she'd be doing so well with these voters if her husband hadn't been president in the nineties. Say what you will, but it's not her "solutions" that's attracting many of these voters.
May 10, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did look at it. You confused me by rounding up to favor Obama. You can't round up! If you could round up, John Kerry would be president.
It's actually 37%, not 40%. Obama's support among whites is 37% to McCain's 53%. That's much worse than Kerry v. Bush. So Obama has an uphill climb. And in WV and KY, his numbers are going to go the opposite direction fast. Have you seen those polls?
Bad news! This number will not improve in the real-life GE contest.
Furthermore, if there is an international incident between now and November (and chances are always good for that), expect Obama's support with these voters to crash.
As Paul Begala says, who cares only about eggheads? Here are the worrisome stats:
College: Obama 50%, Kerry 49%
Postgraduate: Obama 57%, Kerry 55%
These numbers do not offset the non-college voters!
Sheer off-the-cliff fanatsy. According to Obama himelf, these voters repeatedly vote against their economic interests. We can count on the Republicans to understand this. Apparently, the Dems are forgetful.
Clinton's star power with these voters is relevant, especially against McCain. Against McCain, it would surge.
Clinton is much more populist than Obama on economic issues, and light-years more populist than McCain.
You're starting to freak me out about Obama's chances in Nov. I wish you had never shown me that chart comparing him with Kerry.
I say Obama can't beat McCain in Nov. Obama = Kerry.
May 10, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of your uniformed rhetoric is based in real numbers nor does it take into account the huge turnout advantage that democrats have over republicans this year. You comment doesn't even do a plausible job of offering a common sense opinion based on sound analysis.
In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't 2004. Barack isn't Kerry, either. He will get a huge chunk of disaffected republican votes that Hillary doesn't get. He will spank McCain with independents who want to look to the future not a third Baby Bush term.
Using your logic, Hillary Clinton will get spanked by McCain as well, because she will swell the republican ranks and has so much dirt to uncover, so why even bother at all if both candidates are so fatally flawed?
You are the trolliest of the trolls.
May 10, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used the Gallup numbers that Spade linked to, moron.
No need to read the rest of your comment.
May 10, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're comparing 2004 to 2008 with no basis for comparison. Everything about those two races is different in every way imaginable. Come back when you develop better analytical skills and find a touch of common sense.
May 10, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you talking to me? You argue by bullying. That debate strategy pegs you as a Republican troll who has infiltrated this site.
May 10, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blow - that is the most ridiculous line of argument that has been posted here in a long time. Youre the troll, and that has been apparent for a long time.
May 10, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
urban, you damaged your credibility by complimenting liam below. If you want to refute me, go right ahead. No one's stopping you. That's what this post is for: to prove Billy Glad wrong. So far no one has.
Go ahead. We'll wait.
May 10, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe urban is feeding my personal troll. I'm trying to train him to eat only from my hand, urban.
May 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blow and Billy Sad -
It is obvious that you both have too much time on your hands. Just by looking at the time stamps on your posts, you must sit in front of your computers all day looking to be disagreeable. And you cant "run people" out of here. This isnt your website. Get a grip.
May 11, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey. If you and Jason can't discuss this issue reasonably and without insulting people, you're going to have to leave. There are plenty of threads you can join to vent and rant.
May 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The next time you insult readytoblowagasket, I'm going to run your asses off.
May 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean calling a flawed comparison flawed is an attack now?
May 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until Jason interrupted, I was responding to Spade's assertions upthread. The comparison between Obama and Kerry doesn't come from me, it comes from the exact same Gallup data that Spade originally linked to, if that's the "flawed comparison" you're referring to. All of the numbers I quoted come from Gallup. The title of the Gallup article is Obama’s Support Similar to Kerry’s in 2004, so if you have issues with the comparison, I suggest you write to Gallup. I'm sure they'd be happy to hear from you.
May 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling my friends trolls.
May 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know it's not kewl to say lol, but lol! anyway.
May 10, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
For several reasons, Bill Clinton doesn't belong in the list you just laid out. Granted, he did more to protect civil rights than Bush has done, but he's not activist or anything. He's a politician who conceded points to Republicans too, too many times.
May 10, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
BG: We have been hearing this message for months now, how she and John McCain are the only qualified candidates and all that.
Yes, she did flip-flop on that when it appeared that touting the Republican candidate over the fellow party opponent might provide some blowback, but not until a couple of months of poisoning the well had occurred.
And, yes, it appears that 60% of her supporters heard that message loud and clear. After all, now that 60% have declared that the person who is not a Muslim -- as far as Ms. Clinton knows -- wins the candidacy they will go over and vote for that other qualified candidate. Is that doing "everything we can" to prevent McCain from making a Bush III term? Is that reflective of ideas her leadership instills?
Yup. Divide and conquer appears to be her mode of operation. The biggest difficulty is the division part is working ("working class" vs. "educated" -- yes, I know: I'm not using the correct code word language; that should be elite, "I have better support among the Hispanics," and now "I have better support among struggling, undereducated whites," ad infinitum, ad nauseum...). However, the "conquer" part may well be that other qualified candidate (McCain), who will be there just long enough to install two more Roberts/Alito candidates in the Supreme Court.
Buh-bye to a woman's right to control her own body and destiny. A big "welcome!" to making the Patriot Act a permanent part of the legal landscape. A big "howdy do!" to keeping the Department of Justice as the Department of Neocon Justice it is now.
How is it that the most politically experienced candidate could so miserably miscalculate how to run ground campaigns as to not know how to handle caucus states? Those aren't new; they've been around for all the 30+ years of "experience" she claims, correct?
And how can she convince those not already committed to her candidacy (you know...and however "slim"...the majority?) that we want to place the national budget into her hands? Whatever mojo (or dot-com bubbles) that Bill Clinton had going in the 90s is certainly not anywhere to be found as represented in her handling of her campaign budget. It's a miserable mess.
And she started this whole thing, sometime about a year ago, with everybody all a-buzz about how huge was her campaign "war chest."
I see nothing there that would recommend her to me to balance my checkbook.
BTW: If you start suspecting I must have a fat, college-educated checkbook, I offer a few demographics.
And I support Barak Obama.
I used to support Hillary Clinton, but her naked lust for power drove me away.
Neither of their health-care plans will lead to universal coverage though, aside from the disputable mandates, they are very, very similar. Sorry, but not a selling point one way or the other for me.
However, since there is more sick here than just the economy, I was very heartened to hear his explicit promise that one of the very first things he would do entering the Oval Office is to review and reverse the 700+ Bush signing statements, and restore the imperial presidency to one of accountability. And, since I have three relatives currently in Iraq and Afghanistan (the one there was stop-lossed just as he was preparing to retire...), things like getting rid of corporate infiltration into our government and military are fairly high up on my "elite" list.
Seriously, the only thing that Hillary has convinced me of since her campaign opened the "kitchen sink" back around Texas is her absolute addiction to the power of the POTUS office. I don't believe for a single heartbeat that she would do anything to give away one small piece of the power-wall Bush/Cheney has built around the executive branch.
She stared us in the face and lied about dodging bullets. She tried to pull the wool over the eyes of those in most desperate need with that ridiculous "Tax Holiday" that would cost tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs -- all but for the fact it would never get through Congress -- and she knew it. It appears that's another lie.
She and the former president were supposedly successful attorneys. Why do they not understand that instruction typically given to jurors when a witness lies? You know, that moment when the judge says, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, remember that if it is shown a witness has told a single lie during testimony, you must view with suspicion or even disregard their entire testimony."
All her plans, all her promises are suspect, and no statement she has since made can ever allow me to trust her again. If nothing else, her new skin-color or class-distinction arguments are driving out the very last hope for trusting or respecting her again.
The super delegates need to do the responsible thing: They need to run an intervention on her before her addiction causes any more damage to her "family."
May 10, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously Senator Obama's message resonates with you. If he's our nominee, we hope he will be able to reach out to the vast majority of working class Americans the way he has reached out to you.
May 10, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand the fear that Obama will not appeal to the working class demographic. However, just because they prefer Hillary now, does not mean that the will defect to McCain or sit on their hands come November.
I really dislike how this dynamic is playing out. I support Obama for a few reasons. Firstly, he an activist running and actvist campaign that is funded primarily by small donors... I didn't say EXCLUSIVELY, but primarily.
Secondly, I support Obama because he has the most sober and thoughtful foreign policy. When it comes to McCain or Clinton, I feel like a chess piece. With Obama, I feel like a Marine.
Third, I support Obama because he believes in resotring federal oversight and regulation to the laissez faire market that has engineered a war built on housing speculation.
Do I support him personally? To a degree. I think he is a dynamic speaker, and has kept a level head through the most grueling campaign since 1968. But largely my support exists because his campaign is activist, and this level of civic participation will heal this nation. The only war America will right itself is if its citizens GET TO WORK.
The main reason I disliked Hillary Clinton's campaign from the start was because it was an agenda built on keynote promises. Unviersal this, full coverage that, a chicken in every pot and a dollar under every pillow. This has made her the so-called "issues" candidate, when in fact she is actually the promises candidate. The commercial that shows her presenting Christmas gifts to the American people was just shameless.
Right now, Hillary has the majority of the Democratic working class vote. Will they vote for Obama? Many will. That is the nature of political science. They will hold their nose and vote for their candidate, especially in blue collar Democratic families that have been union for generations. The alternative is unthinkable.
The single biggest criticism of Obama is his inexperience. He has the time as the nominee to dispel that criticism or be swallowed by it. That is up to him. So far, his campaign is a stupendous fundraising and message-building machine that will be the blueprint for future candidates. He took what Dean started and is running to the end zone with it.
The second biggest criticism is his association with fringe black and New Left elements that scare the elderly who lived through Black Power and the Zippies. The problem is, as long as his message remains moderate, the accusations will wear out. The only one that might stick is his judgment for remaining a part of the Trinity Church in spite of Reverend Wright... the problem being that Wright had a sterling international reputation before this flare up. His judgment, if compared to the general consensus until March, was impeccable in that regard.
Finally, there is his opponent, whose only chance to win is to pick a vibrant VP who will take over in a year or two... look at the GOP field and tell me who this Magic Reactionary could be? Mitt? Huckster? Kindasleazy Rice?
All metrics point to a landlside Obama victory...
May 10, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking Rice. To vet her for 2012.
May 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting.
May 11, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Hillary Clinton gets out the race as she should have done about 2 months ago, those working, hard working Americans, White Americans will settle in and his base will grow. We cannot compare how he will do with them like her delusions on being president is still making them think she has a chance. Yes, her ONLY chance is if some racist kills Senator Obama, that's it.
May 10, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, perhaps "we" don't when referring to the whole group of working class voters, but Obama split working class voters with Clinton in Indiana. Only if you break the group down by race did Obama do worse among *white* working class voters than Clinton. And whatever problems Obama has among white working class voters pale in comparison to the inability of Clinton to reach black voters, working class and otherwise.
Hillary said "white" for a reason, because it's only then that she does better than Obama.
Based on the primaries, there's no reason to think that black voters, who were essential in Bill Clinton's victory, would turn out for Hillary in nearly the numbers that they will turn out for Obama.
May 10, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she said "white" because that is who she does better with. That was the point she was making. Clinton was discussing Obama’s failure to connect with poor working class voters. His 95% lock on the black vote, including black working class, led her to clarify the working class he has problems with is white.
She was thinking about the recent and soon-to-come primaries where Obama’s problem with white working class voters has become apparent. His camp has known about this problem since early 2007 and has tried to overcome it to no avail. It will be a problem in the general election. And if anyone doubts this problem, watch what happens in WV with Clinton already considered out of the running.
Anyway, making this into another racial slur by Clinton after she has been declared to be out of the race reveals a cynicism from the Obama side and an insecurity about the race. Where is the unity or empathy or higher transcendent principles? And calling someone racist who isn’t is a slur itself. Falsely accusing someone of racism or race-baiting or anti-Semitism is just as bad as making racist comments. It is accusing someone of being a negative stereotype they are not.
The Accusists have been out in full force during this campaign and Clinton doesn’t seem to have a PC shield (occasionally, a gender defense)against the Accusers; it's been Clinton Rules. Obama's a smart and skilled candidate, but I think the Obama supporters have come to believe he can win without a plurality of white working class and Hispanics or that he can turn them around at some point in the GE, but that is hard to imagine.
May 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don, maybe I didn't make myself clear: my point was directed to Billy Glad, not Hillary. Hillary's phrasing of "hardworking Americans, white Americans" is ugly, but Billy's removal of Hillary's race reference, to suggest that Obama's problem is with working class voters regardless of race, is revisionist and misleading. It is, one might say, a whitewash.
May 10, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't trying to be. I was just trying to phrase the issue in a way that would let us discuss it without the emotion and baggage that surrounds race. Senator Clinton was only attempting to acknowledge that some working class voters are voting for Senator Obama, while a far greater number are voting for her. We don't think it's useful to stir up discord or play gotcha politics. We're just trying to be conciliatory, not revisionist.
May 10, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, I can understand your point, and appreciate the attempt to frame the issue without the baggage of racial polarization, but leaving out race undermines the "vast majority" argument for working class voters not supporting Obama. The exit polls out of Indiana and North Carolina indicate that Obama and Clinton either split the working class vote or, depending on where you draw the line, Clinton won by at most 55/45. Of course, the exit pollsters don't ask about "class", they ask education and income. But the point remains.
May 10, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I wasn’t clear either, gtk. I don’t think anyone was referring to strictly to Indiana or NC. Again, Clinton was talking about working class voters that Obama cannot connect with as working class- whites, in this case. Obama’s problem with working class voters, excepting most black voters- many voting identity, is one of character and perception not race. I think Obama enjoyed benefits of being the black candidate at crucial times in the primary but will want to lose the race identification in the GE, which won’t be easy.
I wasn’t referring to you when I spoke of those accusing Clinton of race politics. Clinton was playing politics with her statement because she is in a campaign. Some complain that she is upsetting Obama’s chances, but that is her job as long as she is still in the running. Where I live, Obama has a problem with Hispanic working class voters (and many whites and Asians). Some have said that Hispanics won't vote for a black candidate but this is untrue.
Obama does have a problem of perceived elitism. If you buy into his message, it is hard to see that. Of course, he isn't elitist and unconcerned with the problems of working people, but HRC isn't racist and would not dismiss the black community to gain some edge in votes either.
May 11, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don, I think we are in agreement. She said "white" for a reason, perhaps several, as you describe. I don't think her language was helpful, to say the least, and think the patterns she's chosen she only steepen the uphill battle she would have with black voters were she to win the nomination.
I just don't think Billy's "correction" actually provides one.
May 11, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is the core premise that the white working class voters won't vote democrat because a black man is the nominee?
Or that Obama does not tell the correct "democrat story" and usually democrat leaning voters will not vote democratic? particularly if they are white and working class?
Or does it really boil down to Louis Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, and the Weather Underground?
May 11, 2008 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the so-called Reagan Democrats won't vote for him, what difference does it make why they won't vote for him?
No executive experience of any kind. Unknown until 2003 keynote. Less than a full term in the Senate and running for office most of that time. Never held a single hearing on Afghanistan. Got caught on tape putting down working class value voters. And on and on.
Bright spots? Mainly that Axelrod, one of the guys who picked him to run, ran a brilliant campaign that gamed the Democratic nomination process. Unfortunately, the Axelrod strategy revealed deep divisions in the Democratic Party and has to be restructured for a winner take all electoral vote campaign.
What is scary is not that working class people won't vote for him. It's that people like you are seriously intending to turn the executive branch of the United States government over to this bunch.
I know you're not one of them, but there are many people here who don't care what happens next. They just want this nomination, no matter what.
May 11, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, your candidate does.
May 10, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what your candidate said, she referenced "working, hard working Americans, White Americans"; her words not ours.
Please we may be hard working neither are all of us dumb.
May 10, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant we may "not" be hard working but neither are all of us dumb.
May 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's support among white voters is similar to that of John Kerry's in 2004
How'd that turn out back then?
May 10, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's support among white voters is not similar to Kerry's; in fact it's lower than Kerry's!
I wonder how that's going to turn out?
May 10, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that he can only build up on those numbers as soon as Hillary gets out.
May 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The numbers you used match up Obama's white support with McCain's, not with Hillary's.
Please explain to me—using facts, of course—how Obama is going to gain white support from McCain's group after Hillary drops out?
May 10, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is 10% still unaccounted for. I'm assuming that's the undecided number and that's who he'll have to work to convince that he's better for their livelihoods. I refuse to cynically believe that Reagan democrats are secret racists that won't vote for a black man when he has better ideas and a better agenda for all Americans than the Republican.
May 10, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why Senator Obama's "clinging" comments upset us.
Senator Clinton has been guilty of that kind of thinking, too. I've done it myself. And we're sorry.
It has been an article of faith with Progressives that working class voters often vote their values instead of their economic best interests. And we've been dismissive of them for it.
We believe we owe those voters an apology. It's up to us to find a way to improve the economic condition of the working class period. That's why Senator Clinton favors truly universal health insurance. That's why she favors immediate relief for homeowners. That's why she favors taking the burden of supporting the transportation infrastructure off the backs of workers and putting it on the oil companies by taxing their obscene profits.
May 10, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
Your (our) use of the Royal "we"- sounds a bit elitist :)
May 10, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, that's right, it's the communications director who speaks like that. Well, he's working class, right? Sorry, carry on.
May 10, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant Senator Clinton and I. Naturally, we agree on this point. I do like to use the royal we, though. Especially is sentences like "We do not particularly value what you have to say, since ..... etc." Real sophisto, ain't it?
May 10, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too sophisto for me, litle brother. Have I been dismissed?
May 11, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
In regards to the clinging comments and Clinton's determination, in fact many people's, to find them elitist.
I have no doubt that Obama chose poor words, but I know without a doubt they were in no way elitist. The evidence of this can be found in his appearance at the Call to Renewal in 2006. It shows his mindset and proves that his word "clinging" is not as it appears:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/Taken in this context, Republicans are all too willing to cloud the real issues facing this nation and drum up outrage like "The Democrats want to take away your guns" or "The Godless Democrats want to kill babies."
Republicans, or as Hillary would like to call them "white working class Americans", all too often take the bait.
This is what Obama meant by cling to guns and religion. Very badly worded I know. But hardly elitist. In fact, it shows how Hillary has now turned into a Neo-con. (As if we needed more evidence)
May 10, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would also help if Hillary didn't keep mentioning this over and over again making it a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Saying it over and over again has an effect of making it fact when it simply might not have been the case.
I mean isn't this what Hillary wanted by trying to frame Obama as the "Black Candidate" and trying to stick him with the elitist tag? How exactly does a black elitist connect with white working class? Could it be that Hillary appealed to this group more but they'd still back Obama? Is it a case of Hillary supporters saying the will not vote for Obama because they think that will help out her case with the Super Delegates? How has this group voted in the past?
I guess I just don't understand the idea that a Democrat would vote for a Republican Candidate - I mean if you'd be willing to vote Hillary, why not Barack given their policy differences are miniscule compared to Obama and McCain.
May 9, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't think of Senator Obama as the "Black Candidate" or of Senator Clinton as the "white" candidate. We believe the entire Democratic Party will line up behind Senator Obama if he is the candidate and Senator Clinton urges all of her supporters to support Senator Obama in the Fall. However, in the past we've lost elections when we've been unable to hold on to working class Democrats and win the votes of working class Independents.
May 9, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is something very wrong with this hypothesis.
This is the democratic primary. The only reason why they are split is because there is not much difference between them policy wise. The divide could very well be that working class Americans feel "Well, even if Hillary doesnt know what she's doing, she's got Bill. He's been president before."
I mean think about it! With all of the fear mongering, lies, distortion and corruption no one is buying anything the GOP has to sell, especially coming from old man McCain.
Why is Hillary fighting so hard? Because this is it! This nomination process is the presidential election.
The GOP has no money. Donors have dried up. The evangelicals feel used. Bush's approval rating is somewhere around 80%. There is nothing the American public is buying from the GOP.
Why the heck do people think Obama does not connect with working class people? His whole campaign is about the little guy. The whole thing. The only reason it has been so close is "working class" Americans were buying the Clinton (yes both of them) brand name.
Once that brand is removed from the shelf, they will NEVER EVER choose the republican.
May 10, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he just doesn't seem to be doing well, if the exit polls and other polls are any guide. We're as puzzled by it as anyone, but we think Senator Obama is in a better position to explain why he's not connecting with those voters than we are.
May 10, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that is just it Billy. Two democrats splitting the democratic vote.
One set of voters think "He's too green. Better to go with the one who brings her hubby with her that has been president before. Remember the 90's? Wasn't that a great time?"
Or the set that says:
This nation has become too corrupt. Full of cronyism, loyalists and corporate money. Unfortunately Bill and Hillary both fall into that category. Obama is ethical, honest, has integrity. He believes, as Supreme Court Justice Brandeis once said, "The best disinfectant for corruption is sunshine."
We have our nominee. I think he is a good one. He has won over many, many cynics on his way there. I believe, once this primary race is done, he will win over even the most cynical of the remaining democratic voters.
Really..the alternative is McCain. Obama embodies democratic values. Why would democrats not vote for him in huge numbers? You actually think the "working class" democratic voter is going to vote for 100 years in Iraq and God Save the Rich McCain?
May 10, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy;
Tomorrow I will show you analyses that show that it is not true that Obama is not garnering working class voters. He has been slowly gaining a higher percentage and when you factor in the Limbaugh Republican votes Obama does not have as far to go as HRC's speeches imply. It is too late right now-but if you want I will find the links for you tomorrow.
I am very confident that when the dust settles everyone who is a progressive or moderate democrat will line up behind Obama. They have yet to experience how compelling and inspiring his speeches are.
We will be all together in November!
May 10, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
ooops disapproval rating
May 10, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of the electoral arguements from the Clinton camp are being made with respect to the old electoral map: Florida, Ohio, PA, MO, New Hampshire...
This is the map the Democrats keep losing. (yes old Bill Clinton would have lost it too if it weren't for Ross Perot)
Obama draws a new electoral map, and while he will probably have more trouble with lower income, less educated whites in the midwest, he's also going to greatly expand the states that are competitive. With Obama we're going to see VA, NC, NM, NV, CO.
Expanding the electoral map plays right into the hands of a well funded campaign with a strong volunteer base.
May 10, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sheer lipservice. Your candidate is about a week from running off the cliff totally and declaring herself the "white people's candidate."
And, she's playing the "good cop" to Bill Clinton's "bad cop!" (See remarks after SC primary.)
I can't wait for Sen. Clinton rip the mask off and reveal... Tonya Harding going for Obama's kneecaps while proclaiming that he just can't be elected because of the racist American electorate.
May 10, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what many of you don't understand is that part of the high turn out in the Democratic primary is due to a combination of liberal progressive Democrats (like me) who simply remember all that Hillary has done for people in this country all of her working life, and see her as the best qualified candidate; plus conservative Democrats who see Hillary as more toward the center politically than very very liberal Obama; plus many many Republicans who are so disgusted with Bush, and who want out of this war so badly that they are willing to vote for a Democrat who they see as the more conservative of the two Democrats.
What this means is that if Obama gets the nomination, people like me will support him. But conservative Democrats, and Republicans voting Democratic in this election will simply vote for McCain. They are not worried about a woman's right to choose, gay marriage rights, or any other of our liberal agenda.
But...if Clinton is the nominee, she will keep all of these voters, plus liberal Democrats like most of us because we DO care very much about the Supreme Court and abortion rights, etc. And, we can count on Clinton upholding all of these issues that are important to us because, believe it or not, she is a liberal Democrat...just not as liberal as Obama.
Obama is carrying 16 mil of liberal democrats. Clinton is carrying 16 mil of a combination of liberals, conservative Dems, and Repubs who will vote for her to get us out of this war. This is why the race is still on. The popular vote is still basically half and half, which means that if the superdelegates go with either one, they will be going against the will of 1/2 of Democratic voters, either way.
Thus, the remaining superdelegates, over 150 of them who have not declared, are just as likely to go with Clinton to be safe than to go with Obama and hope there are no skeletons left to jump out and ruin the general election for the Dems. He is getting many of the publicly elected supers, but the party leaders who have no concern over constituents are more likely to vote for the person most likely to keep the conservative voters, and that is Clinton.
May 10, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is completely untrue. No republican is going to vote for Hillary. There is a conservative radio talk show host that has repeated what many conservatives tell me. Check this out, a rare look into the regular conservative (not neocon) mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uFauzE_cqw
May 10, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to another Gallup poll done on May 2, it turns out that more Republicans genuinely support Obama over Clinton. "Though neither Democrat is viewed very positively by Republicans, they seem to like Obama more than Clinton. Obama's favorable rating among Republicans is 34%, compared to just 24% for Clinton." http://www.gallup.com/poll/106993/Republicans-Divided-Preferences-Democratic-Nominee.aspx
As to conservative Democrats, I think Obama will improve the relationship with them as soon as Hillary gets out of the race and stops insulting them by telling them they're too racist to vote for the black man.
May 10, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget, if Hillary manages to "win" the primaries like Bush "won" the previous elections (2000 Rep primary), the black vote may not be there for her.
To have the superdelegates give her the nomination after the way she's campaign, and I'm including her arguments to the supers about electability, there will be many, many angry African Americans. If she gets the nomination, there will be a strong concerted effort to get African Americans to vote for a 3rd party - cause we still don't like McCain. Especially since the Green Party and even Nader is more in line with our politics than the major two. Though, I'll be voting Dem down ticket.
For the sake of the country and our future, I would hope that Clinton and her coalition of noncollege educated whites, blue collar whites, older women whites, and white Catholics come out strong for her. I won't be upset with Latin activist and progressives if they put her over the top. Who knows how many wars we may end up in, or how many trade deals her husband successfullly lobbies her into (trying to make the point that Clinton is hawkish and economically conservative)? At least we'll have healthcare and better child care (trying to commend the policies I do like).
But, in the interest of racial justice and equality, she just may have to go it with the 8% of black voters she gets now.
May 10, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
While Senator Clinton has never viewed this race in terms of black and white, the anger of African Americans is understandable and justified. And black Americans are uniquely positioned to move America forward this century. The black experience has given African Americans insight into the reality of American culture and politics. Although Senator Clinton can never share those experiences, she acknowledges that African Americans have earned their wisdom at a high price.
It is no accident that Senator Obama, along with Jesse Jackson, was one of the first Americans to denounce Bush's misadventures in the Middle East.
Black Americans bore a tragic and disproportionate burden during the Vietnam and the Cold War in the Reagan era.
Senator Clinton has always been proud that Bill Clinton denounced the racist policies of the US government like the Tuskegee experiment, and personally apologized as President to African Americans on behalf of the United States for Tuskegee. But righteous anger that those things ever took place is totally justified.
We can only hope that Senator Clinton will find a way to reach out to African American voters if she is the nominee.
May 10, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, if she becomes the nominee, it means that rules were broken or she basically had super delegates overrule the will of the voters. Many voters will see the injustice of that and I suspect that many African Americans will choose to sit out this election and the Dems can't afford that. So, all this talk about her becoming the nominee is as Bill so delicately put it, "a fairytale."
May 10, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't share your view of African American voters, especially black women. We don't think they will vote for McCain if Obama is unable to convince the super delegates, many of whom are black themselves, that he is the right candidate to go up against McCain and company this year.
Facts are facts. Water is wet. Rocks are hard. The vast majority of working class voters do not support Senator Obama, probably because they don't trust him yet.
May 10, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, if you're going to perpetuate the myth that Obama cannot win over working class voters despite the information I presented below, which clearly shows that they are virtually tied among voters making less than $50,000/year; then you are going to have to clarify your statement to say either what you really mean, or where the actual discrepancy lies: she's winning a larger portion of white working class voters.
May 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who the hell are you talking about? You keep saying "we" as if you are more than one person. Have you finally snapped?
None of your comments here are based in facts or even just common sense. Barack has won huge numbers of working WHITE middle class in Alaska and Idaho and Iowa and Colorado and Virginia and Maryland and Georgia and Texas.
He is winning the democratic primary by winning a small percentage of the vote. They are splitting the vote, essentially. He gets white, Latino, Asian, black and all the other division you would like to cite. His coalition is not only broad but it is deep as well.
Have you not been paying attention? Don't you see the vast variety of Barack's support, even just here on this site? Just when "we" thought you had decided to join us in a reality-based context, you decide to go the other direction.
Good luck out there!
May 10, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a good laugh over that one. Thanks!
May 10, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is why nobody respects you: you make strawmen to dodge the arguments you are unable to counter.
Obama also won the whitest state in the country: Vermont (surprising, I know).
May 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A statement made by someone who claims 1) 65-year-olds are do-nothings, 2) all "menial jobs" require "trade school," and 3) only rich people's votes should count. You sound like someone I should take seriously.
It's Spade's argument to make, not mine.
Not surprisingly, you give me a migraine, Einstein.
May 10, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's pretending he works for the Clinton campaign. Sort of like how Hillary pretends to have experience.
May 10, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...probably because they don't trust him yet."
That may or may not be a key insight, but it is only speculation. If it is true, then the 'yet' is the operative word.
But, I think this is all premature. The 'working class' voters - I'm not even sure who that is given you take the 'white' out of it that Clinton seems to include, but I don't see why AA's can't be included - have had to choose between Clinton and Obama, not Obama and McCain. It could just as easily be that while Clinton was thier first choice, Obama is an easy second ahead of McCain.
This is not to discount your point that Dems need to appeal to the 'working class'. They do, however; Obama may not need to win as much of it as previous Dems because of his strengths in the AA vote, bringing in new voters, his appeal to independents (which competes against McCain's appeal to independents), and the young voters which if they continue to show up in the numbers they have - and I know that's traditionally a big 'if' - could put Obama over the top without a majority of the demographic you're referring to.
May 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was an African American lady who wrote a diary in dailykos a few weeks back talking about how people at her church were talking about not going to vote this November if Hillary steals the nomination. There are conversations like this taking place all over. You're basically telling African Americans that it doesn't matter that you play by the rules and do everything right and win the most votes, the most pledged delegates, the most states, we think that there are way too many racists out there so your votes don't really matter. The Democrats can't afford depressed voter turnout.
May 10, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't think it has anything to do with race. We think it's about values and character. Those voters simply trust Senator Clinton more than they trust Senator Obama, just as you trust Senator Obama more. It's really that simple.
May 10, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
She isn't the nominee, and she isn't going to be the nominee, so it really doesn't matter, does it?
May 10, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you seriously think the Clintons have played to anti-black racism, then you and I are watching two different campaigns.
Also, I didn't say African-Americans would vote for McCain. We're not suicidal. Voting for McCain wouldn't just be cutting off your nose to spite your face (if I have the saying correct), it'd be cutting off your face to spite your face.
No, I'm saying we WON'T vote for Clinton. Obviously, her campaign thinks she can win the general election without us. I hope she can. I'd hate for McCain to win. But trust me, I'd survive.
May 10, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I meant if you think the Clintons have NOT played to racism . . .
May 11, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wouldn't just be the black voters who'd be staying home if Clinton managed to take the nomination in a super-delegate coup. A lot of white liberals like me are not going to endorse her slimy tactics, are not interested in more dynastic policies, and will never forgive her for the war.
May 10, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you specify what you mean by working class?
May 9, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. Blue collar, service industry, lower income, didn't attend college for one reason or another. A lot of them shop at Wal-Mart, volunteer for the Armed Forces, work hard and have a hard time saving money. But they have hope for a better future and deserve a President who cares about them and knows that the Bush years have been a continuation of the conscious efforts of the Reagan/Bush regime to use the burden of national defense to destroy social programs and to destroy the middle class, lower income Americans and the poor. We think it's their turn to get a leg up the ladder to a better life.
May 9, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: they have hope for a better future and deserve a President who cares about them
are you for real? do you remember Clinton Admin v1.0? I do, and that great not-so-progressive moment was over in 2 years, and not much of substance was done in that time, certainly not universal health care. The lobbyists and the Dem cowards saw to that. From that point on it was all about ending welfare as we knew it and passing NAFTA. A few swell anti-privacy things happened too and wholesome Billy even let the world know he was down to "protect" marriage.
and then the big danger now is that Obama is going to ignore the little people, the first African American President in the entire history of the US?
what say you give him at least two years in the white house and then try to compare legacies?
May 10, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, it is nice to disagree with a real leftie rather than these fake-assed, faux Hillary supporters, the trolls who hit progressive blogs in their online version of operation chaos, aka operation big fat idiot.
May 10, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton agrees that Republican trolls, especially Freepers, are a pain in the ass. Their constant attempts to disrupt Progressive sites like TPM is an indication of how important sites like this are in helping Progressive thought leaders rehearse their arguments and work through their differences.
May 10, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are Clin-Ton.
May 11, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dislike answering a question with a question, but its late so what the hell.
Just because Senator Clinton says he can't does it make it so?
Just because she won those votes in the primary, does it mean he cannot in the General? Six months is a long time to get comfortable with something new.
Finally basing voting patterns on primary elections or their exit polls is a zero sum game. They never equate to what happens in the GE.
And folks who use the numbers
I know not the answer you were looking for, but best I can do at 2330 hrs EDT
May 9, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the cut off sentence was deleting and hit send by accident.
May 9, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fox. I have to say really, that is one cool plane. I am totally serious. If you can really fly it, you have no idea how impressed I am. I love planes. Almost got a glider's license.
May 10, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before tackling the overarching idea of how I think Senator Obama can win in the general, I'd like to pose some additional questions to you as acting communications director to nail down some specifics.
1. What is your definition of working class? Are we using income as a gauge? Or education level? Or some combination of the two?
2. Over the course of this primary, both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have been running fairly equal in polling matchups against McCain. While I recognize the fallibility of such polling at such an early date, one must assume that both are garnering a roughly equal measure of the electorate, wherever it is coming from. Can you cite any evidence that proves your theory that Senator Clinton will hold onto these votes in a general while Senator Obama will lose them to McCain?
May 9, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out my response above for your ansswer.
May 10, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fremont:
Your theory that Senator Obama is taking only liberals is not backed up by any facts. Fortunately, it's one of the categories polled in the exit polls throughout the primary. Let's take a look at Missouri, for example. Of voters identifying as very liberal, Obama won 56-41. He won "somewhat liberal" 60-37. Clinton won moderates, 49-48. And Obama took "somewhat conservative" 58-39.
Let's jump forward to North Carolina. "Very Liberal," Obama won 69-30. "Somewhat liberal," 58-41. "Moderate," 57-41." "Somewhat conservative," Clinton won 56-39. And "very conservative," Obama won 48-47.
Let's look at a state Obama lost: Indiana. "Very liberal," Obama won 61-39. "Somewhat liberal," 53-47. "Moderates," Clinton took but Obama was competitive at 53-47. And conservatives, Clinton took 63-37.
Finally, you still have presented no hard evidence, other than theory that can be easily disproven, to show that Clinton will retain these voters in the general, but Obama will not be able to get them.
May 10, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will widen his appeal with those folks. When he has gone in campaigned and people got to know him he improved with them. I think there are several factors in play that help her with this demographic. There is a familiarity factor with Hillary that is within their comfort zone. The elitist thing is a bunch of bull. Blue collar folks can understand that his beginings are humble and he's nowhere near the level of affluence of a Clinton or McCain currently. Familiarity will help with this also. It would help to get more specific on the changes he proposes that will directly impact the working class. All of this will be easier to see when contrasted with McCain's policies.
May 10, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, Hilary.
Definition upthread.
While Senator Clinton generally does better than Senator Obama against Senator McCain, polls indicate either of them can beat McCain for the popular vote. When the electoral vote is considered, however, some models show Senator Clinton beating McCain but Senator McCain beating Senator Obama.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
We think the difference can be attributed to Senator Clinton's appeal among working class voters, many of whom are so-called Reagan Democrats who align around candidates instead of Parties. We think it is these voters that Senator Obama need to connect with to win the general election.
Senator Clinton needs to hold on to her votes. Senator Obama needs to find some more support before November. According to these models at least.
May 10, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Obama has a lot of work to do to win white working class voters, for sure. But then as we've clearly seen for a long time this election season, it was always hard work and an uphill climb for him anyway. Running for president always is hard work, but for him to get where he is (and past the 'inevitable' Hillary), well, it's darn amazing that he's accomplished this much. I wish him the best as he clearly is a better choice than McCain. The GOP doesn't deserve to keep the WH after their disaster that is Bush.
May 10, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
We really don't distinguish between while working class and black working class voters. There are just a lot more working class voters supporting Senator Clinton right now, and that support is reflected in the current projections of the electoral vote in the Fall. No one has a crystal ball, and the situation could change, especially if Senator Obama finds a way to connect with working class voters.
May 10, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'll say this: I wish you *were* running the Clinton communications office. Re: projections, see my note on Intrade below.
May 10, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not really convinced that the American electorate has ever displayed evidence of the sort of color-blind class consciousness that your position here presupposes. Is there really such a thing as "the working class vote" that exists as a unified bloc, rather than an abstraction crafted by failing to notice the distinctions between northern white working class voters and southern white working class voters and black working class voters and Mexican-American working class voters (etc and so forth)? You would be hard pressed to find the evidence for the existence of such a bloc.
With that in mind, it seems to me that Obama will appeal to these voters in much the same way that Clinton would have had she been the nominee. He will appeal to Mexican-American working class voters by pointing out to them that his party is the party of enlightened self-interest and liberality, while his opponent's party is a bastion of knuckle-walking nativist bigots. Obama favors drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, a policy which will make their families, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens much safer and more comfortable.
He will appeal to working class Catholic voters in the northern midwest and northeast by promising them school vouchers (at which point the teachers' union will really wish that it had not played so dirty against him) and a guarantee that he will get their sons and daughters out of that God-forsaken republican cock-up in Iraq, while McCain will keep them their until the end of their natural lives.
He will appeal to black working class voters in the various swing states by precisely the same means that he has been appealing to them so far and he will ignore the working class voters of all stripes in the non-swing states, just as McCain will ignore them and Clinton would have ignored them had she been the nominee.
I hope that answers the questions.
May 10, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton doesn't see working people the way you and Senator Obama do. She understands that Senator Obama's experiences have been different from hers and from the majority of working class Americans, but she believes that what working people of all races and ethnic backgrounds have in common far outweighs their differences. She doesn't feel that it's necessary to create a different message or sales pitch for each group. She's going to keep appealing to what unites us, not what sets us apart from one another. As long as Senator Obama sees black working class voters and white working class voters he will be speaking to them as blacks and whites, and not as working people trying to build a better life.
May 10, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Perhaps, Billy, if she had hired you as her communications director, she'd be in a better spot right now.
May 10, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Billy, but that is a total canard. Clinton and Penn have specialized in micro-targeting and tailoring messages to voters, including the latest favorite slogan, "Vote for me because I am not black."
It is TOTALLY unfair to say that Obama has different messages for black and white voters--his campaign has done everything it could to be post-racial from the beginning. It's only the efforts of Clinton surrogates like Gerry Ferraro that racialized this campaign--at least until the latest Clinton slogan and PowerPoint campaign.
May 10, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just reminding my friend from MO of that fact.
May 10, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this something like HDTV channels - you get more wink-wink in HDObama. Secret code for the elitists?
Or a careful maneuver of story lines. Pseudo-Judo.
I get the same message over and over again from the Obama campaign. The mother ship is grounded, and we are all invited to work to lift it off the ground again.
I smell a rat.
May 11, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
We definitely need working-class voters to win. Can Obama put a winning coalition together in the fall -- one that includes the working class?
I don't know. I'd say we're going to find out.
In any case, this sort of prediction really needs quantitative evidence to be meaningful. Anecdotal impressions just tend to confirm our pre-existing biases.
As Hilarym99 is pointing out, the head-to-head matchups have been running fairly even. Josh has made a good case that this should be the low point for the Democratic nominee, so we might reasonably expect a bit of a boost once the primary season is over.
But look -- if you really suspect that Obama can't win, you should go on Intrade. You can bet that John McCain will win in November. Right now, that contract is a steal. It's selling at 38.1. Barack Obama winning in November is rather more expensive. Even with the nomination not yet official, it's selling at 55.7.
I'm not claiming that Intrade is infallible. It's not crystal ball that predicts the future. But it does tell us what people *think* at a given moment. If you're wondering why Obamanauts aren't panicking about his supposed inability to attract working-class voters, the answer is clearly that a majority of political junkies don't *really* believe that the divisions of the primary are going to remain an obstacle in the general. And that includes Clinton supporters. They may be pissed, but they don't seem to really believe that we're doomed. If they did, Obama wouldn't be beating McCain on Intrade.
So, I don't know, maybe Obama will be unable to attract working-class voters in November. But the evidence for that premise is sparse, and indications are that the majority of interested observers don't actually believe it.
May 10, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Evidence? In the form of numbers?! That's your standard!?!? How dare you imply Billy Glad has no right to blog!
May 10, 2008 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Intrade, like any market, exhibits a sort of herd mentality. I think all you can say about Intrade is that it's not predictive. It indicates what Intrade traders think at the time. Right now they don't think Senator Clinton has much of a chance. But who does?
May 10, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
We're using this model right now.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Of course, it's self serving, because it shows Senator Clinton winning in November and Senator Obama losing to McCain. You can build a better model, or you can argue that both of our candidates will do better in the Fall. We we think Senator Obama has ground to make up, while Senator Clinton doesn't. Right now, nationally, she is the stronger candidate in terms of electoral votes. We intend to keep making that point. As an insider, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to place a bet on Intrade.
May 10, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your voting models are incomplete, more importantly irrelevant. The will of the voters have spoken. We have our nominee.
Instead of trying to make Hillary's superdelegate argument, we should be trying to find ways to repair the damage done to Obama by Hillary by strengthening Obama's democratic base for the fall.
You are a democrat right Billy? You want our democratic nominee to win in the fall correct?
Obama is the best nominee. Before Hillary started her knee-capping, most Hillary supporters thought Obama was a nice guy, but just didn't think he had enough time in Washington. Once this nastiness is over, they will see that he is just that - a decent, honest, ethical person.
If Hillary manages to wrestle this in a back room somewhere, the outcry will be enormous. Democracy and the will of the electorate will be diverted.
The American public have watched in disgust as they've watched our constitution torn to shreds, our justice department jailing whomever they choose, and cronyism and loyalty trump competence to our society and our planet.
With Obama, there is still a chance that we can wrestle our country back from these monsters. Unfortunately Hillary and Bill have cast their lot with them. A lot has changed for them since the idealistic 90's. Between Bill's foreign investors, his connections with Daddy Bush and Hillary's great relationship with lobbyists, they have become what they used to loathe.
Them stealing this nomination will be nothing less than attempting to destroy democracy.
May 10, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are missing the core of the Clinton argument.
This acting on their behalf is in the least elitist manner possible, if you know what I mean.
May 11, 2008 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Diversions are fun, at first. Until they divert folks.
Look, the majority of Democratic voters are going to vote Democrat. This is a fact. Undisputed.
Women, whether black, white, latino, asian, green, purple, or otherwise, will not allow John McCain to win the White House only to appoint his brand of Supreme Justices who would be Roe v. Wade.
With more than half of the country now wanting our occupation of Iraq to end soon, there is no way any Democrat would want to vote for McCain and his plan to keep Bush's plan intact. That's a fact.
Add to these facts the fact that most of us are pretty pissed off about our liberties being taken for granted and our Constitution being raped, I don't see how a Republican -- ANY Republican -- could win in November....unless the Democrat of choice at the time voted for our invasion of Iraq.
May 10, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that's the facts, Jack!
Oops, I meant Billy.
;)
May 10, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Jack, that is.
May 10, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL @ the synchronicity
May 10, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you have something important to do today, go ahead and do it. We'll be here when you get back.
May 10, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You left out blue. Any particular reason?
May 10, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt she was in a hurry to run her important errand and would have mentioned blue had she had more time.
May 10, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter at all what Sen. Clinton thinks. Sen. Obama doesn't have to answer hypotheticals posited by her. His winning the majority of primary delegates is the reason why he should be the nominee. Period.
May 10, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention the majority of declared super delegates.
May 11, 2008 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's true that democrats are in a much better climate to win right now than they have been in recent memory but considering how close the last two elections were we can't take anything for granted. We won't win if the party isn't healed, if a segment sits this one out or spite-votes for McCain. Obama will continue to run a brilliant campaign. Here's hoping that the transition from Primary to General will go smoothly for us Dems.
May 10, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The flaw of your argument is in what you here neglect: the mention of "white Americans."
The construct is "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans." The semantics here show a pattern of repetion through. She says working, impacts it by making it into hard working, and then rewords it as "white," thereby showing that she feels that blacks don't work.
Now, you could argue different punctuation, in which case it would be "working, hard-working Americans; white Americans," but this would be defining "working" as "white."
And if you'd look at the polls on this very site, you'd see that in a general match-up, Obama does better against McCain. This has been the case since the very beginning, when polls found that the only electoral combination in which dems would lose was Clinton v. McCain.
In your definition of "working class," you include having not gone to college. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not all but the most menial of jobs taken by graduates of a collegiate institutions? (the proportion might change if you, unlike me, exclude trade schools such as MIT, Olin, and Nashville Auto-Diesel College)
May 10, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not really, many construction workers, truck drivers, landscapers, service industry workers, housekeepers, musicians, handymen, plumbers, auto mechanics, grocery worksers etc. have no college education. There are lots of people with no college education that work hard and make a good living. They don't necedssarily have to work menial jobs.
May 10, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most of those require post-secondary vocational training, which became collegiate when MIT was accepted as a first rate college, despite its being a trade school.
May 10, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, with all due respect, you're wrong on the numbers. Lots of Americans don't graduate from any post-secondary institution. And they end up doing all sorts of things -- not necessarily "menial" jobs.
According to the census bureau, only 85% of Americans graduate from high school.
Only 28% of those 25 or older have a bachelor's degree.
The numbers for two-year degrees are going to be somewhere between 85 and 28. But it's definitely not true that "all but the most menial of jobs are taken by graduates."
5% of people employed in science and engineering have only a high school diploma.
http://nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf04333/
For more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States
I don't mean to be a heavy, but in a thread about class it's appropriate that we be clear. You don't have to go to college to make a difference in this world; most people don't.
May 10, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now this is a disturbing number. I never would have guessed it was this low.
Careful, here. These are people like technicians. And while they have skills that are valuable (precision soldering for example), there jobs are not what you are implying in terms of creativity. (Their salaries are reasonable but not high.)
Most of these people that I know with this background are working on getting a college degree -- they know full well the benefits of one, especially in that environment.
May 10, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amusing obsession with MIT.
Did you not get in?
May 10, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's just an example of how a trade school (in this case, engineering) counts as a college.
I was under the impression that most fields required accreditation from a national organization, and that accreditation usually required vocational training (I usually think of the mechanic as the essential "working class" job, but modern cars might make this idea outdated).
May 10, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the response. You just helped me calibrate the rest of your responses.
May 10, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you proposing, Billy? Start the primaries all over again? Really, what's the next step? What would you have us do?
May 10, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it apparent? Billy would have the impudent voters quit interrupting the coronation.
May 10, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and did we mention that a fair number of the people qualifying as "working class" in your definition probably wouldn't perceive enough of a personal investment in the race to make them give up vitally needed pay to get to his/her local district polling station?
Hell, my mother works from home, and she still has trouble finding the time!
May 10, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to offend, dude, but this remark could be misunderstood as suggesting that we write off a lot of people. You are a Democrat, right?
May 10, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying those folks don't matter? More than 50% of our adult population doesn't have a college degree. Hell, Bill Gates didn't even finish college.
May 10, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying I'd take the support of people who can afford to vote over those that can't when judging by elect ability, as those who can pay greater dividends. This is Machiavellian, but applicable to the subject of this discussion.
May 10, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just get over it already. She lost. Let it go. Next topic, please?
May 10, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now I am a worker, I've suffered the way that you do.
I've been unemployed and I've starved and I've hated it too.
But I found my salvation in Obama, may the nation, let him save them as he saved me.
May 10, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Props to Andrew Lloyd Webber, if you please.
Same guy who wrote a musical about Judas and Jesus and Mary and all the rest, may they rest...in peace.
May 10, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he could turn white and join the KKK.
May 10, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Golly....but just YOU ain't a ball o' sunshine.
May 10, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's what Hillary did.
May 10, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, he's been doing what he can -- between the pancakes and the cheesesteaks and the PBR. Would have killed me, and I already *am* white.
May 10, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious! But now you've got me worried about the poor guy. No wonder he's been looking a little pale.
May 10, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Backpack Dude. You know your scriptures. You've skipped the prayers in crap-speak. You seem to know where you're going too. So I'll follow you, but only if you promise to never code your backpack to flash neons.
May 10, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my God, I've got it 99% figured out! I think Hillarym might have cracked it, too, unless she's off in the wrong direction. Frickin' amazing - my hat's off to you.
May 10, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you work for the government? It's like the psychiccow thing? I'm still just beside myself...
May 10, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. I dig the drugs you have in the pack. Don't forget the suicide by Diet Coke capsule. I absolutely told you back at Langley
that only Matt Damon can freelance and we must stay cloaked. You and I, bit players and sloggers, humble code breakers among the mighty ....
whatever, dude
May 10, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was waffles, not pancakes.
May 10, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
See - Obama is lying to you again.
May 11, 2008 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
I think your headline is telling: The Vast Majority Of Working Class Americans Will Not Vote For Senator Obama In The Fall
The Vast Majority you're talking about is the white majority, isn't it? Now, come on. Don't dissemble. Drop your mumbo-jumbo about "We don't think of working class voters as white or black." As the acting communications director for Hillary, you must realize it's important to stay "on message." And your candidate's message clearly is that Obama can't win blue-collar WHITES.
There's a difference between "can't" and "hasn't since Hillary and Bill began using race as a wedge."
Go back to South Carolina and Bill painting Obama as just another marginally successful Jesse Jackson. Or revisit Hillary's insistence that "reject and denounce" Farrakhan. Or just read her remarks a couple days ago.
As long as Hillary makes race an issue in the Democratic Party, some Democrats (regrettably) will find her more appealing than Obama until the whole board is reset and Obama and McCain clash on core principles of greater weight to white, working class Democrats than Obama's skin color.
Shame on Hillary for running a racially divisive campaign in the first place.
May 10, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of the difficulties that an Obama campaign is going to face. Sure, she might have worded it differently, but Hillary was referencing the exit polls, the contents of which were reported in countless articles and minutes of television, but somehow she was wrong, when she referenced the same information.
Prior to any primaries, political analysts like myself had been using Jesse Jackson's '88 campaign as a guide to the bottomline for Obama. He was expected to do well everywhere that Rev. Jackson did well and with the exception of Michigan, Sen Obama carried all of the same states as Rev. Jackson, right down to narrowly losing the primary in Texas, yet winning the caucuses and the coming out with more delegates.
Obama expanded on Jesse Jackson's landscape and that's why he's in the position that he is today, but Jackson '88 has proven to be an accurate projector of some outcomes. Unfortunately, somebody in the blogosphere decided that Bill Clinton making reference to Jesse Jackson was racist because in their minds, Jesse Jackson was nothing but a black man.
Every story leading up to the South Carolina primary contained the statistics about the African-American vote. The same has been true for most of the other southern contests. A full year before the SC primary, Sen. Obama was addressing African-American groups by trying to draw a line from overcoming slavery to his candidacy, but supposedly, it was the Clinton's who interjected race into the contest.
Yes, Hillary maybe could've worded things differently, but why should everyone else get to analyze the voting blocs, but she's forced to remain silent? Why do the vocal Obama supporters get to claim that a Clinton victory will cause the African-Americans to stay home, but more importantly, with all of this slicing and dicing of language, where are we going to be in November?
May 10, 2008 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS) Before people accuse me of being a Hillary shill: I worked my ass off to elect Bill Clinton, while living in a part of Virginia so conservative, they banned "work" on Sunday and had a revival about the "evils" of New Age music; and I did much the same as many of you, when I was trying to help Jesse Jackson win the North Carolina primary.
My beef is primarily with what the vocal Obama supporters have done to them and how they've made me feel about myself.
May 10, 2008 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the way you have tried to frame the issue in a race neutral manner. By doing so, you perhaps spare us the trolling (first time I've ever used the term, so forgive me if it's not appropos) of the faithful whose accusations of race baiting on the part of the Clintons regularly shoot to the top of the "recommended" list. But let's not avoid the issue. There are deep divisions in the Democratic party, including class and education, but race has to be at the top of the list. It's no secret that during the past several primaries, Obama has overwhelmingly carried the African American vote while Clinton has won whites by fairly substantial margins. It's also no secret that Clinton has done well among the so-called "working class whites." Thus we have the ballyhooed made-for-tv confrontation between Donna Brazile (who needs those white blue-collar voters and hispanics anyway?) and Paul Begala (you can't win with African Americans and eggheads).
You can't turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper without some commentator talking about Obama's difficulty in connecting with working class whites. (One can quibble with the extent of the phenomenon, but it's hard to deny its existence). When Hillary does so, however, she is vilified as race-baiting and divisive. But even her supporters should concede that she has made some terribly clumsy (to be charitable) pronouncements on the subject and by hyping this strength may be widening the divide.
Hillary's argument has some truth. Her strength among blue collar white democrats - including many of the swing voters a/k/a Reagan Democrats - may have made her a stronger general election candidate. But she couldn't convince enough primary voters/caucus-goers to vote for her. The only scenarios under which she could win the nomination would leave her so damaged it's hard to imagine her winning the general.
Ironically, Obama, who began as the post-partisan candidate, is the one who has had trouble broadening his base. There is no question that he will need to win over the working class voters who have supported Hillary if he is to have a chance in November.
How to do it? Well, after all these observations, I don't have much in the way of solutions. I'll borrow a few from Paul Krugman (I know, someone's going to call him a Clinton shill).
1. Let's start by not claiming that Clinton supporters are motivated by racism.
2. On a similar note, it's not helpful to constantly heap scorn upon HRC - the media does a good enough job of that as it is. It also undermines Obama's post-partisan message.
3. Obama needs to focus on his economic message. While things have a way of changing quickly, at this point, the economy appears to be the biggest issue of the election and potentially the greatest benefit to the Dems. Although in the primary, Obama talked about the economy under Clinton and Bush in the same breath, he needs to draw the distinction between the Democratic and Republican records.
4. Obama needs to reach out to Hillary - yes, that's right, the devil herself - and she must actively support his campaign to reassure voters who are anxious about the relative newcomer.
That's about all I can muster at this late hour.
May 10, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would add that I believe Obama has a better chance of attracting the so-called white working class vote than either Kerry or Gore because he conveys an authenticity they seemed to lack (as campaigners, I'm not talking about them personally) and because the Republicans are just so damned unpopular right now. Despite all the division, it's still the Dems' race to lose.
May 10, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we could still recommend comments, yours would get a click.
May 10, 2008 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
He should post it to his blog. Some of the most interesting posts start out in the comment thread.
May 10, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have done so. Thanks Magister.
May 10, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I mostly agree.
(For the record, I think calling the Clintons' invocations of race "clumsy" is a wee bit more than "charitable." Notice that Obama doesn't talk about the subject until forced. He doesn't invoke gender either. Could he go around saying, More guys are voting for me? Sure. It's a true observation, and plenty of media types are saying it. Why shouldn't he be allowed to say it?
Because it's divisive, and would weaken the party -- that's why. When you're running for president, nothing counts as an idle, innocent, sociological observation.)
BUT . . . whatever. That's all behind us. Armchair guerrilla's suggestions for affirming party unity are perfectly reasonable, and I guarantee you they're all being tried.
It's also true that Obama projects a folksiness and authenticity that Kerry & Gore (and I'd say Edwards) lacked.
May 10, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah, and you can quote me on this...
McCain is going down this November like Bob Dole did stumbling off the stage a campaign event in 1996. Maybe McCain can retain some millionaire self-sufficiency after losing the election by hawking ED pills on TV.
Think about it. This is 1996 all over again, except this time with ginormous historic significance for the winner. I further predict it will be a win well beyond 50+1 and the closest thing this country has had to a mandate in quite some time will actually come to pass to the benefit of the US and the world.
time will tell.
May 10, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad: Why? Why do you say such things?
May 10, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really tired of this internal fear mongering within the Democratic Party.
Hey, we have two really strong candidates for once, both with very broad appeal. With there still being no "certified" nominee, it's to be expected that many people have dug themselves in with their loyalties.
However, it's still a long time until November. I'm convinced when the Clintons drop out of the race and request (with a cherry on top) that all their supporters turn their support to the nominee that exactly that will happen for the most part. Particularly once Bill remembers that he's the leader of the entire Democratic Party and not just his wife's campaign, we'll see a tremendous coming together of the party.
May 10, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
He no longer is the leader of the entire Democratic party. He spent that capital. Burnt it up.
Sorry. I liked the guy once, but now he's an ex-pol from Arkansas.
Obama is the leader of the Democratic party. Gore, Dean, Reid, and Pelosi are the party elders. They kept their powder reasonably dry. Bill's is gone.
May 10, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that is just it. All the talking heads, after the IN and NC primaries said "She's done, she will bow out gracefully. She will save face."
The only one who dissented was Rachel Maddow. She knew Hillary would not give in. It is obvious she does not give a shit about the party or its chances for the fall unless she is the one on the ticket. We cannot assign any kind of decent attribute to the Clinton's, none. They will kick, scream, fight and push bogus legal action if necessary. They do not care what they destroy in their wake. (think GWB)
May 10, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy;
There are additional calculations to add to the mix. The last few elections have been decided by less than a million votes. We now have evidence that there are about 3 ½ million new democratic voters. Also-I am certain from closely following the primaries that many of those people have never watched Obama first hand. They are only going by HRC’s and the media’s input.
Obama has real roots in the working class. That along with the fact that he was reared by a single white mother and white grandparents will go along way to excite the working class voters as well as to nullify the fears about Reverend Wright. Then there is the added fact that entire party will be very focused on getting Obama into the White House.
I have expressed for some time that after we have a winner AND a looser we will get a better picture of leadership. The ability to rally their followers behind the other candidate will say volumes about how good a leader that candidate is as well as how loyal their supporters are.
My final concern is how well we handle the swift boating. I think we are going to see vile ads the likes of which have never occurred in mainstream politics before. And we will need to thrust and parry them. In the end I think that is what will decide the election. On that same issue I think we-that is, the internet supporters Are going to play the biggest role ever. I think it may well be up to us to handle the swift boaters because the Democratic Party has not been very good at that for the last many years.
And the Supreme Court is going t come into play as well. There are many swing voters who are also Pro Choice. In short, I think this election is ours to loose. And I have faith that we will all come together because this is truly a rare and defining moment in our history. We have a chance to get back onto the path of national righteousness. To be that shining beacon that Reagan always spoke of-that is what this election will be about.
May 10, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, lets be honest here. Clinton also has a problem with college educated voters, youth voters, and black voters.
Also just like racism exists and will be a problem for Obama, so too does sexism which would be a problem for Clinton.
It's funny how Clinton supporters are so willing to say the demographics she has problems with will fall in line, but it's so impossible for Obama to sway working whites against Mcain.
So why? Why is that so impossible?
There is only one reason I can think of here.... He's black. So is this not what is being suggested? Do we as Democrats say no to the first viable black candidate because some racists might not vote for him.
If Clinton won would we take it from her because some misogynists might not vote for her?
Why don't we just hand it to Edwards to be safe?
Why don't we just keep sending out the boring white guys to get slaughtered? Why don't we just keep being cowards and sending people out based on there supposed "electability" and watch them get gunned down by the republicans?
I think the real connection with Clinton and electability is really just a trick of the mind. We all now Bill was the first Democrat to hold the white house in a long while, so we see Hillary and our minds make this connection. We believe that a Clinton can win every time. However Obama has proved that's not true. They can be beat.
He will be our nominee, the people who need to buy the argument aren't buying the idea that he has MORE negatives then her. I think they see the negatives as equal.
May 10, 2008 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
A really excellent response, Jsmith!
May 10, 2008 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Senator Obama must get tired of being characterized as the "black" candidate, even by his supporters.
May 10, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The two flaws in your argument are substantial, and so common they have already been rendered to cliche.
1) You are, as Joe Klein put it, looking "in the rearview mirror" of past elections "and pretend[ing] to see the future" of the 2008 general election.
This ignores the very real fact that the composition of the electorate has changed substantially since 2004, the size of the democratic electorate has increased substantially, Hispanic voters are moving substantially toward the democrats, the sitting republican president is the most unpopular president of all time, and McCain is a very weak candidate.
Additionally, Obama, Axelrod et al are not pursuing the DLC ("big state")campaign model, developed in the mid-1980s, pursued by Gore, Kerry, and Senator Clinton and which led to their defeats.
The Obama camp has successfully refined the Dean/Trippi campaign model and is reconstituting the democratic coalition.
2) You are projecting what might occur in the general election, with a democrat running against a republican, by looking at the results of a primary campaign, with two democrats running against each other. An error so obvious as to require no further explanation.
People whose jobs involve manual labor, the traditional definition of "working class" or "blue collar" folks, are not a monolithic voting block. Speaking of of them as if they do is really an expression of bigotry.
May 10, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
We're just looking at the current electoral vote models and the current national polls and exit polls.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
May 10, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
You make great points. All of them. I appreciate the sound and reasoned stands you make here.
May 10, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just wanted to demonstrate that it's possible to talk about the working class with dividing them into black and white. Senator Clintons remarks were unfortunate. She was obviously struggling for a way to say that black working class voters were supporting Senator Obama, but that the vast majority of working class voters were not. At first I thought she might have said "non-black," but I finally decided that the vast majority is the vast majority and the working class is the working class. We should concentrate on what they have in common, not what separates them.
May 10, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that she was trying to divide -- along the most treacherous and painful rift of all in American society, race -- for her narrow electoral purposes (and after any realistic chance of winning the nomination herself, at least without really tearing the Party apart). She was not merely trying to offer helpful advice about how to broaden Democrats' appeal. Wolfson's elaboration of a comment you acknowledge to be unfortunate does nothing to alter that conclusion.
If she were generally interested in helping Obama appeal to "working class" voters, publicly stating that he fails to appeal to working class voters would hardly be the way to do it.
May 10, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you say "working class" and don't divide them by black and white, I'm not sure how you are dividing them from the rest of us but since class is often as much about culture as income, these same voters would be targeted by the Republicans with similar wedge issues if Hillary were the nominee. She won't escape Wellesley, Yale elitism. She'd be the radical feminist babykiller. She'd be the uppity woman trying to wear the pants in the family. There is an endless list of the same old same old wedge issues that will be used against any Democrat man, woman, black or white.
Until Democrats can give working class voters a positive reason to vote for them, these wedge issues will work. At least Obama gets this. Whether he can deliver on it after the Clintons have tried so hard to obscure that positive message is certainly a question.
But see Bob Herbert's column in the NYT today. Payback begins. The Clinton scandals are not far back in the closet. They would get plenty of air if she were to be the nominee.
May 10, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good morning all.
I did a little number crunching this morning to see what the overall numbers Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have been getting from voters making under $50,000. Using CNN exit poll data, Senator Clinton has garnered 50.11% of voters making under $50,000. Senator Obama has garnered 49.89% of voters making under $50,000.
Additionally, these numbers do not include data from Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, District of Columbia, Hawaii, or Wyoming. It should be noted that each of the states not included in the tally are states that Senator Obama won, some of them quite handily.
May 10, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops. One more point of clarification. These numbers begin tallying with Super Tuesday on, when it is easier to pin down voters divided between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama because they were the only two in the race.
May 10, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly right. As many cogent analyses, including Al Giordano's over at http://ruralvotes.com/thefield have shown, Obama does not have any problem with working-class whites. Suggesting that he does is simply a media-repeated meme started by certain liars at the top of the Clinton campaign (notice I say "certain" as to not impugn all of her staff generally).
Where Hillary is winning is with whites over 50, and especially whites over 65. All other things being equal, whites over 65 are an extreme outlier in this primary. Given that Hillary has no advantage over Obama on things like Social Security, the inescapable conclusion is that this is simply old-school racism. Not necessarily conscious racism, and these aren't necessarily bad people. For some (especially in Indiana, where when these 65 year-olds were young more than half of the men in the state were in the KKK), it is indeed overt racism. For many others, though, it's just the understandable formation by culture that leads to lingering thoughts: "I don't know that other people would vote for a black man", etc.
It is what it is, and we shouldn't be quick to condemn anyone for what is a societal problem, not a personal one. What we should be quick to do is recognize it for what it is, and gently turn the page.
Again: Obama wins under 50s against Clinton, and nearly wins under 65s. It's time to start working on the future and getting the next generations involved. Relying on this mystical "retired, used-to-be-working-class old white person" vote hasn't worked out too well since 1980, and it's time to move on.
That last bit is a key point... this strategy has been a loser for nearly 30 years. It has never won a thing. If not for Perot, Clinton (nor another democrat in 1996) would have been elected. The Clinton prowess is another myth. The only prowess he had was in playing the Arkansas good old boy's club.
May 10, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are whites over 65 even working class anymore? I don't think there's anybody out there who do less work than retirees, by definition.
May 10, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the final analysis, it comes down to trust.
I voters, delegates and super delegates decide they trust Senator Obama more than they trust Senator Clinton, they should vote for him.
If they decide they trust Senator Clinton more, they should vote for her.
There are many aspects to the job of President, but the ability to earn the trust of the American people and to lead in a way that does not betray that trust is the most important.
We think in the final analysis that the trust issue is the reason late deciding voters continue to break for Senator Clinton. They just trust her more.
May 10, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most Americans don't find her trustworthy or honest. She's been losing because only 39% of voters in America think she's trustworthy.
May 10, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
We agree that trustworthiness is an important deciding factor in choosing a President.
Unfortunately, postulating that the reason late-breaking deciders choose Clinton is not rooted in fact. It is simply a theory. Our theory is that Senator Clinton has, and has had, all the advantages of an incumbent in this primary. We believe that name recognition and favorable ratings of President Clinton have played a large role in late-breaking deciders.
Regarding trustworthiness, fortunately the superdelegates will not have to rely on theories to prove which candidate is viewed as more trustworthy. In a recent ABC news poll, a shocking 58% of voters did not believe Senator Clinton to be honest and trustworthy. Half of Democrats don't believe her to be honest and trustworthy. We believe those numbers will be a severe barrier to success in the general election.
May 10, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa, is that a departure from reality or what?
From Gallup:
Hillary Clinton is rated as "honest and trustworthy" by 44% of Americans, far fewer than say this about John McCain (67%) and Barack Obama (63%).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105097/Perceived-Honesty-Gap-Clinton-Versus-Obama-McCain.aspx
From WaPo:
Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883.html
From Newsweek:
One of the more devastating results for Clinton was that a majority of all registered voters now see her as dishonest and untrustworthy. According to the poll, just four in 10 (41 percent) registered voters view the New York senator as honest and trustworthy, while 51 percent think the opposite. This compares with solid majorities of voters who see Obama and McCain as honest and trustworthy (both polled 61 percent).
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721
From UPI:
A poll finds North Carolina voters believe Hillary Clinton is far less trustworthy than either Barack Obama or John McCain.
More than half of those surveyed, 54 percent, described McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, as trustworthy, while 48 percent said they trust Obama. Only 25 percent say Clinton is trustworthy.
Almost 90 percent said a candidate's honesty is important to them.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/05/poll_nc_voters_doubt_clintons_honesty/9655/
There are hundres more just like this.
Come on Billy, if you are going to make a statement like that, please try to find something that is at least in the realm of reality.
May 10, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
If voters don't trust Hillary, they should vote for Obama. It's that simple.
On the other hand, if they don't trust Obama, they should vote for Hillary.
We're ready to take that message into the Fall campaign against McCain.
May 10, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Ridley's "Spare Mr Your Exit Polls"
May 10, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a shockingly reasonable discussion, with good evidence on both sides.
Billy, thanks for the link to electoralvote. Putting that map together with recent national polling, and I have to admit that Clinton seems to have an edge (a small edge, close to the margin of error, but perceptible nonetheless) on the electoral map. At the moment.
On the other hand, I like hilarym99's decision to actually, you know, count working-class voters. And it doesn't look at all like "the vast majority of working-class voters" are refusing to vote for Obama. It's durn close to 50-50.
In short, we're looking at pretty small differences. Especially since the general election is still six months away.
And here's the key thing: At this point, we have a nominee. And the nominee is Barack Obama. So, while this has been a lovely discussion, it's time to segue to the next part of it, where we talk about practical ways of building a coalition for the fall.
Stress the economic agenda. Be nice to Hillary. Eat lots of waffles and set up photo-ops where you're listening to ordinary people. Other ideas?
May 10, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a thought here, but maybe one of the reasons Sen. Clinton is not doing as well as she had hoped/liked with the Democratic electorate is that she keeps making statements that need to be "corrected and expanded on" in order to demonstrate that they were not intentionally offensive and demeaning.
May 10, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think of it as job security.
May 10, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's only a portion of white working class voters (which is a HUGE and diverse demographic) that he cannot connect to, and that is the faction that is racist. How can he connect to them? It's impossible. He certainly can do better on explaining his economics policies and ideas for health care, but unless he changes his name and the color of his skin, it's a lost cause for a certain percentage of the population. That's the sad truth, and it goes two ways. They need to listen to what he's saying and not just tune him out because he's a person of color. As for HRC, it is the underlying message of what she's been saying this week that is so offensive. She knows that the white working class racist element is out there, and that's who she is talking about. That's the wedge she is driving and it is 1) not helpful, and 2) destructive. When she is no longer a candidate maybe she can set an example to these people who are voting for her because they "have no other choice--the lesser of two evils--would never vote for a black man" by helping him to get his message to them.
May 10, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Related thoughts.
May 10, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Duke to Hillary Clinton:
"You had me at White Americans."
May 10, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear BG,
I've never had the pleasure of reading a series of your straightforward, non-cryptic comments. This was terrific. I'd like the opportunity to discuss this issue without interruption. I'm at johnhughmcfadden@hotmail.com
My teaser is that I agree that trust is the problem for Obama. It's not his policies. It's his differentness as amplified by the Wright stuff and bitter gate, much less his rhetorical flights. More later
May 10, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can fall by my personal diary/blog any time. Comments are moderated, so I'll get an email if you post one. Believe me, you won't be interrupted there. One of the great things Josh Marshall has done is to use his own popularity and appeal to create a space where people like me can be read.
http://billyglad.blogspot.com/2008/02/who-can-stop-barack-obama.html
Since I wrote that post, I've decided that McCain's age has become an increasingly important factor. I saw a video of him tottering along with George HW Bush the day Bush endorsed him. He seemed so old. More than any time I can remember, McCain's choice of VP is going to have a real impact on his chances.
May 10, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear BG,
Obama's strength is his empathy. He doesn't have to drink beers or sit on tractors--please no allusions to "rat-a-tat-tat." He has to understand their distrust, cop to his insensitivity, his lack of familiarity, how his skin color is part of his differentness, all to make the point that he understands why they might think he can't passionately pursue their interests. Then he can refer back to a series of quotes of him in 1995 that demonstrate his passion to bring all of us along together toward fulfillment of our dreams, how he believes that we can't serve interest groups to the exclusion of other groups. He can do that terrifically if he could get the idea that he is most genuine and persuasive when he expresses this core passion that he has demonstrated in his work as a community organizer.
May 10, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a sneaking suspicion that by the time November rolls around, Billy will have maxed out on his contributions to Obama.
May 10, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I do not support the thesis of this post fully, I believe that many posters on TPM have been rude to Hillary Clinton in a way unnecessary and unkind. Serving no purpose other than anger, I suspect that many people here can't get through the day without experiencing something inside them that is not about Mrs. Clinton, but something else-- an inner demon of insecurity, often recognized through a mob violence of speech. That such invective has only increased at a time when Mr. Obama has apparently secured the nomination proves the point. I wish it were not so.
May 10, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
At my rudest I've called her a phony. Because that's at the core of why I don't want her to be the nominee.
Am I really reacting to my own inner demon of insecurity? Gosh, I think I might be insecure. That's why I also participate in mob violence so much that I've got the stench of tear gas in my nose constantly, and my clothes are all stained with tar from the tar-and-feathering I love so much.
Thanks for your pop psychology, levi. Now I know it's not about Clinton's continued pressing of the race button and other acts of desperation. It's about my insecurities.
I think we may have made a breakthrough.
May 10, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You either wish for your candidate to become president or not. If you do, the mob mentality must stop. Mob mentality is ugly coming from any direction. You may find yourself campaigning for Mrs. Clinton as Mr. Obama's running mate sooner than you think. That will be a political reality. Kindness is not weakness, as Dr. King has proven to the world. The dust is settling now. You can be Bull Conner or Dr. King. How would you like to be remembered?
May 10, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bird Thing. Points for Pappageno. Points for punctuation. Points for not using crap-speak. Tie for the silly picture. No mistaking Mozart's lithe song- singing fool. But Bird Dude. Can't you find a better picture from another production ? Massive reductions for pretentious writing. Points, however, for a message of substance.
Shades. Looking directly at the sun will blind you.
May 10, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cypher, you've become all process, no content. Where's the beef blue dude?
;)
May 10, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beach girl. I have no beef. I have no content. I am a vegetarian or still in my cell at Dachau. I leave content to those who believe that the ovens are closed.
I respect content spoken without crap-speak. And is this regard, the sea looks most welcome. No content. No ovens.
May 10, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which production would do you prefer?
May 10, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would the movie work for you? Probably not. I'll take one from the Komische Oper in Berlin from a few years back. Bad singers, but the direction from Harry Kupfer was pure magic. A brave soul, old Harry. Surviving socialist realism and the Stasi.
But to get back to Billy's post. I thought your comments were quite relevant, and I didn't mean to completely crap on them, but the hat annoyed me.
You're hit something quite important. Seems like you're new to this place. Me too. But I've been around long enough to tell you that what bothers you has been described as the echo-chamber in Billy-speak. Think of it as a kind of digital reverb (audio)-a New Age sound that seems warm and comforting when first heard. But when repeated, it sounds like a flushing toilet. No not quite right. Let me alter that content to this: the flushing of a toilet captured by some grimy digital sound recorder. A sound false and hollow. Makes your bleedin' fillings fall out. Kind of like listening to the Magic Flute with Bill Moyers conducting on PBS. Christ. Makes you miss socialist realism.
But Bird Thing. I'm with you on the substance. And would hope that you post it all through the echo-chamber.
May 10, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cypher,
I've read your posts here and am confused on one issue. You say that you are an Obama supporter and, if I understand your message, you would like people to be realistic about what brings us together rather than what keeps us apart. How do you expect that this will happen when you, yourself, seem so angry? The same applies to Billy Glad who, at one moment seems steady with a message of unity, and at another moment chases down posters and symbolically kills them? Think of Mozart's message in the Magic Flute.
Levi
May 10, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Levi,
You have me dead to rights. And I apologize. Yours is a fine post and you make a fine Papageno. It's an interesting balance to capture the interplay of energy and purpose in an arena such as this. Banter of all types can keep the energy and interest going. And it gets out of hand. That's the nature of this place. Hardly a stroll through a mythic glade with Plato.
There is always negativity and chaos in creativity. The criticism of style is my own bugaboo. But I am hardest on myself. Trust me. Perhaps that kind of satire is better confined to a smaller post-world where the low energy of the style deserves it. So I retreat, just a step, on that account. Most of the people who post here (at least today) are serious about their ideas. But those ideas wouldn't be explored so fully and with such passion in a more cerebral tone.
I can't speak for Billy. But I've learned a lot from him in a short time. He has a noble purpose in my view. I don't agree with him on many political points. But interacting with him has made me confront a few uncomfortable issues through humor, and I've come out the other side with a more accurate expression of those previously unspoken political fears.
But it's a free-for-all. That's the idea. And people know what they're coming for when Billy's at the helm or on the loose.
Blue
May 10, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Complete this lyric:
The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear _____
May 11, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there are some unfortunate views expressed by both Obama and Clinton supporters, on this site and others. However, I believe it is our responsibility to 1, not engage in attacks personally, and 2, look past the views of those who seem to only attack the other side.
I also wish it were not so, but I think we have to try to view the candidates themselves when judging, rather than their supporters. I realize this gets tricky at times, of course. Additionally, each side has bright and insightful supporters who often voice intelligent and thoughtful views on this site, and others. I try to focus on those.
May 10, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would add this. Provocation is a purposeful kind of content. Speaking as an Obama supporter, I want to be kicked around in anyway to see what comes up.
One of the real failings at TPM is that the Clinton posters have been run off without the slightest bit of shame. More than provocation, they have been ridiculed on the substance of their posts. Most often, they have been the more thoughtful posters. I don't think that all of them left because they felt pushed around. I think many left because they were bored.
That embarrasses me as an Obama supporter. And I'm worried that so many Obama supporters are caught in some mental glue that doesn't allow them to think and act more responsibly. Makes me worry that the ground swell that is supposed to be moving upward to the candidate will collapse as the near-impossible stuff gets real. Both candidates are telling us crap about what can be done. Both of them know it, or should. But to get any part of that done, a furious public will have to turn out for more than a feel- good rally. The problem with dreams is that they're over too fast. I have no problem that Obama has dreams. I'm worried about his audience in the cheap seats.
May 10, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put.
May 10, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somewhere, on some islands in the Pacific Ocean, in the 1950s or 1960s, they found a few Japanese soldiers who thought they were still fighting WWII. One of them was named Billy Glad.
May 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
And they write songs about his still. The wonder of it all.
May 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many if not most people are pretty easily lead. They can be easily lead by fear, bigotry, custom, culture, or by what their family, friends and neighbors tell them to do. I know my 87 year old mother would by inclination not vote for Obama and whether she would admit it or not, it would be because of his race. I also know that she can be influenced and if my brother and I and others tell her we are voting for Obama she may well go along and overcome her natural inclination.
What is appalling about the Clinton campaign is how they have affirmed people in their cultural fears and customs and in effect told them that it is A-OK to choose not to vote for Obama and to choose not to vote for Obama because they are white and he is black. Since the Clintons are party elders and do have considerable influence as opinion leaders, they could have taken the opposite course.
May 10, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
My overall point in expressing those numbers is that I think Obama's "problem" with the working class has been slightly over-exaggerated. However, I do think he will need to work hard to get those votes, but that any Democrat should pursue various routes to the White House, including expanding the electorate and bringing in new voters, as well as appealing to Independents.
Secondly, both candidates would face challenges in various ways if they become the nominee. But I honestly believe that the Democrats are right on the issues, and in agreement with the vast majority of all Americans at this point in time.
It's going to be a great fight.
May 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where is that beach, beach girl?
May 10, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I’m no political analyst. I consider myself to be an ordinary citizen who responds to common sense issues.
Here’s my answer to the defense of something I find indefensible.
So many say that Hillary was merely quoting facts when she said yesterday:
“Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again and how the whites in both states who had not completed college are supporting me and in independents. I was running even with him and even doing better with Democratic leaning independents. I have a much broader base to build a coalition on.”
I guess I just disagree with those who say might say Obama has run his campaign as the black candidate, as Magister implies upthread.
I’m not familiar with the example give by Magister -- “A full year before the SC primary, Sen. Obama was addressing African-American groups by trying to draw a line from overcoming slavery to his candidacy, but supposedly, it was the Clinton's who interjected race into the contest.”
Let’s say Barack did this a year before his campaign (and I still would like to have the complete context) it does not mean he has run his campaign as the black man. He has resisted this context at all costs.
In fact, every time he has been asked to describe the wins Hillary has had, in terms of racial lines, he has refused to do so.
Why couldn’t she do the same and just leave it to the pundits to dissect the electorate? No, she did it for a purpose. I’m still pretty stunned THAT she did it. But there you have it. I still don't see the purpose.
But Billy, I will still be laughing next week about your "wiping your ass with the Obama newsletter" comment from yesterday.
That's the kind of irreverence I have to bow in respect to, being the girl from the bronx that I am.
May 10, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jenny. Points for honesty. Points or reductions (depending upon reader's age, sex, taste and/or rage) for the stimulation.
Do you take the D train or the Gun Hill Road line? That D Train hits the square faster than a sale at Bloomingdales.
May 10, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Cypher,
The D train was my train alright. Took that baby up and downtown for many years. Got on at Columbus Circle straight to 170th and the Concourse. Went up and down, up and down and up and.. Oh, is this too much stimulation for you? Did you mark me down this time? Sorry-- couldn't resist my inner Jenny.
Later
May 10, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am speechless. Humbled. Impotent.
May 10, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy Billy aren't you the stalker. First checking out caringthinking's chest now this little chickadee. I suggest you two get your own private chat room.
Your Hillary feminist hypocrisy amazes me.
May 10, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush's disapproval rating maybe 80%, his approval ratings are in low 20's
May 10, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hiillary's race baiting is causing a huge backlash.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
May 10, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The effort made by obama to win the workingclass vote, whatever that is, will appropriately kick into gear after Hillary exits the race. There will be plenty of time.
The key is the huge number of women in the working class. The most intense efforts to gain their support would have damaging effects if it came with the expense of anything negative towards Hillary. There are plenty of pragmatic reasons for the women who have supported Hillary to prefer Obama over McCain. They will have plenty of time to compare Michelle to McCain's millionairess trophy replacement, (who will face similar demands regarding her income tax returns to those face by John Kerry's wife), but more than anything else---there will be the empathy on issues like healthcare, and empathy so genuine instilled by his mother, that they will respond in huge numbers.
Obama has a sense almost like a jazz musician of when to stay in the background, and when it is time to step forward and sound his notes. There are aspects of his campaign which have not yet been fully unleashed----and a lot of that is simply because his appeal is very natural towards some of the strongest supporters of hillary Clinton. Once they become more available---he will find ways to reach them.
May 10, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no. This is a fallacy. Obama needs to win the working class now. The working class already left the party several elections ago, so Obama needs to get them back or they'll vote Republican again. The data show Obama is unable to compete with either Clinton or McCain for this vote.
You need to face the facts of Obama's weaknesses or Dems can't win. If Dems can't win, Obama shouldn't be the nominee.
Everything else you say—about women, Cindy McCain, jazz—is based on flights of fancy and wishful thinking. Wishful thinking doesn't win elections.
May 10, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is behind by every conceivable metric. Just over 100 days ago, where was Obama in the race? Where is he now? Enough said.
Democrats arguing that Obama isn't going to win working-class voters rather than arguing how Obama's presidency is going to help working class voters aren't doing the party any favors. Maybe you mean not to, I can't say.
Passions are high and the battle for delegates has been long, hard-fought, and close. The nomination battle is over now though and the general election looms. It's time to send the Republicans out into the electoral wilderness and that's not going to happen until the primary's divisiveness is put to rest.
It's either that or a 3rd Bush presidency. Seems like a clear choice to me.
May 10, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam - good comment. I dont understand why these Clinton supporters dont GET this.
May 10, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad does not want o Senator Obama to become President. He is just trying to sugar coat Hillary's White Supremacy Dog Whistle.
May 10, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink