The stunning truth: Obama would get crushed in the fall

[DemVet]

Why, ask many Democrats and media commentators, won’t Hillary Rodham Clinton see the long odds against her, put her own ambitions aside, and gracefully embrace Barack Obama as the inevitable Democratic nominee?

Here is why: She and Bill Clinton both devoutly believe that Obama’s likely victory is a disaster-in-waiting. Naive Democrats just don’t see it. And a timid, pro-Obama press corps, in their view, won’t tell the story.

But Hillary Clinton won’t tell it, either.

For the rest, go to: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9564.html

[AspenRose]

1. Will you vote for Senator Obama if he is the democratic nominee?

eom

[AP]

3. It's not to the people posting at DU you need to ask that question. It's to people like my

long-time Democratic, Bush-hating friends, but who aren't so passionate that they spend time online arguing about politics, who say "did you know McCain is the only republican who says global warming is a problem?"

And they're saying that in contemplation of a Clinton nomination too!

[AspenRose]

6. You'd be surprised.

And I'm asking it as a reminder of where the focus ought to be....not really expecting an answer.

[AP]

13. I should have prefaced that subject line with "Ideally,"

[Texas Hill Country]

121. and that he is good with science and stem cells, and that he isnt part of the christian right...

this is a problem.

[Craftsman]

29. No, I will not vote for a Bigot

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. What are you talking about?

:shrug:

[Danger Mouse]

52. Obama's not a bigot, and neither are the Clintons.

:puke:

[Craftsman]

60. Yes he is and also he is and he is an idiot

His statement alienated a whole lot of people is swing states.

[Danger Mouse]

68. what proof do you have that he's a bigot?

[LaurenG]

69. No it didn't

It may have alienated some who never liked him to start with. The rest of us know what he was saying and those who have felt as if their government was alienating them can relate. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what he meant. It's deliberate obtuseness that is causing the uproar...

[PseudoIntellect]

134. Hillary insults entire states as irrelevant, too small, too caucusy, too red, won by Obama, etc.

She is also an idiot by your logic.

I think neither are considered idiots.

[JoFerret]

72. Many people do feel this way.

I think they are mistaken.
I have argued with several.

But their votes count too.

[Butch350]

83. You God D***

Right I would. Your beginning to believe your own bulls**t. Hillary would be swimming like a salmon upstream in the GE.

[aquarius dawning]

126. I'm actually looking forward to not voting for him.

[smalll]

140. Would I vote for him? Over McCain? Yes I would. HE WOULD STILL LOSE.

Yes, I will vote for him if it has to come to that. But I'd have to go to a Starbucks first, and spit in a couple lattes when no-one's looking.

(Watch your ventis in November, java-heads!)

[mwb970]

2. The funny thing is, it looks just the opposite to Obama supporters.

Like looking-glass partners, Obama fans and Hill fans are constantly saying that the other candidate simply "can't win". Good God, maybe they're both right! What then?

[Tesha]

14. We ejected the winning candidate(s) from the race a while ago.

Now, we're stuck with "the cool kids".

Me, I'm assuming we'll all get used to saying "President
McCain", but maybe America will turn out to be less
racist than I assume it is.

Tesha

[mwb970]

25. Sadly you're right about that.

Back when we had 8 Dems running or however many it was I would never have singled out HRC and BO as the final pair on the island. I started out with Richardson, Biden second choice, then moved to Edwards. Now they're all gone. Of the two remaining, I prefer Obama, although I also understand those who support Hillary, as she is very impressive.

BTW, I wish Richardson had grown his beard while he was still running. He might have won, I tell you!

[QC]

32. Well, the media narrative was already decided before the race began.

It was going to be like an episode of Big Brother: the white chick who thinks she's in charge vs. the cool black dude.

Obviously Richardson or Biden or Edwards would not have worked. How can you make a cheap reality-tv show out of that?

[Andrea]

98. Yep, it's just too bad

that so many of us fell for it.

[goldcanyonaz]

138. He looks horrible with a beard.

[Craftsman]

30. The smart thing to do would be to ditch both of them and get Edwards

[amandabeech]

50. I'm there!

I have serious doubts as to whether either of these two candidates could win in November, and I do not want a McCain presidency.

No bomb, bomb, bomb . . . . bomb, bomb Iran for me.

[Tesha]

53. Edwards was my choice on election day, but...

> The smart thing to do would be to ditch both
> of them and get Edwards

Edwards ended up as my choice on the day of NH's
primary election, but I would have also been happy
supporting any of Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, or
Richardson, and ecstatic had Gore entered the race.

I would have held my noise and supported Biden in
the General Election and it's requiring me to hold
my nose to support Obama.

If the nominating race so far were to be tossed away
and the convention was to do something radical, I
think we could come up with a better ticket than
Edwards. He was a weak candidate in 2004 and while
his positions were better-articulated in 2008, he
ran a weak campaign and caved-in too quickly, a
hallmark of recent Democratic losers.

I would again be strongly behind a Gore-led ticket
with any of a variety of choices (definitely including
Obama) in the Veep slot.

Tesha

[Andrea]

99. Check out the link in my signature line

There are many people who agree with you and we're trying to do something about it.

[chascarrillo]

135. haha

[SammyWinstonJack]

56. Exactly right! Just had to have an "historical" election. Who cares about actually winning.

We ejected the winning candidate(s) from the race a while ago.

And the Obama/Hillary supporters were happy about that. Still are in fact.

Who will they blame for President McCain?

[Straight Shooter]

91. "And the Obama/Hillary supporters were happy about that."

Yoo-hoo, Blue State Native, I ain't happy! In fact, I got into an argument yesterday with a friend because I staunchly support the idea that Edwards was the only candidate who could beat the Republican nominee. I'm still creeped out by his strange withdrawal/suspension from the race. He looked like he was under significant duress.

Don't get me wrong, at this time I strongly support Hillary, and I will be happy to cast my vote for her or, if Obama is the nominee, I will cast my vote against McCain.

:hi:

[dchill]

106. "vote against McCain."

You can say that a-gain.
:hi:

[Straight Shooter]

114. Okey-doke, it sure bears repeating, doesn't it?

Vote against McCain! Amen and double amen.

:hi:

[dchill]

115. Any way you rhyme it...

I just can't slime it.

:shrug:

[Straight Shooter]

118. .

:D

[Andrea]

100. This is what I can't understand

The supporters of each one seem oblivious to the fact they have put us in this very dangerous position. They still seem to think this is all about winning the nomination. Why aren't they concerned about November? How can their denial be so strong that they don't see they are handing this country over to McCain? This is very serious. This is dangerous. This is so much more important than "Let's elect a black guy" or "Let's elect a woman".

[Tesha]

127. I think a lot of people here don't understand how primaries and general elections relate.

> They still seem to think this is all about winning the nomination. Why
> aren't they concerned about November?

I think a lot of people here don't understand how primaries and
general elections relate. And the simple answer is that they hardly
relate at all.

Okay, Obama won Utah. And in the general election, that means
exactly *ZIP* because no matter who our candidate is, Utah will
be voting for the Republican in November. We might as well not
poll Utahans because there is nothing they have to say that can
affect the outcome in their state in the General, and they may
well lead the national party to a sub-optimum choice.

And this isn't a ding at Obama; I'm sure we can find a state that
voted for Hillary in the primary that hasn't got a hope in hell of
voting for her in the general; Florida might serve as our example.

We really need a nominating process that somehow weights the
importance of each state in the nominating process with the
likelihood that that state will actually vote for the Democratic
candidate in the General Election and de-emphasizes those
states that will never go for the Democrat anyway.

We also need a method (such as "acceptance voting" or "instant
run-off voting") that would let true consensus candidates to
emerge as the victors instead of the candidate who simply got
the plurality of votes in the primary. Had this been the case, you
might have seen (for example) Edwards being "acceptable" to
(albeit not the first choice of) 70% of the voters whereas Obama
might have been acceptable to only 52% and Clinton acceptable
to only 45%, even if Clinton was the first choice of the most
voters.

In other words, our candidate selection system needs massive
reform.

Tesha

[Andrea]

130. I completely agree

Our candidate selection process is a mess. We need to eliminate caucuses and close our primaries. We need a calendar that does not give undue power to a few atypical states. We definitely need instant runoff voting - that's a great suggestion. I'm intrigued by your idea of weighting the states according to how likely they are to go Democratic in the general. I'd like to see that get some consideration.

Maybe you are right that people here don't understand how the primaries and generals relate. Maybe that is part of the problem. I've learned in the last six weeks that many people here have no idea what the overall nominating process is. They think it is akin to the general election, with the most votes carrying the day. They don't understand the role of the super delegates. They don't know how or why we came to have super delegates. They don't understand that the nominating process is governed by the party rules and not election laws. They don't know that until the 1960s regular voters had very little input into choosing the nominee, and the input we have now is not some kind of birthright, it's simply the way the rules are currently. They know very little of the history of the party.

The worst part is, they don't know how much they don't know.

Sigh.

How can you educate people when they think they already know everything?

[bvar22]

94. Agree.

Its too late to be talking about electability.
There were several excellent electable candidates in the Primaries, but we are stuck with the two well financed, Business Friendly, longshots.

It would be amusing (if it weren't so pathetic) to watch the two opposing Democratic camps point their fingers and scream, "But He/She isn't electable".

I'm also hoping that "America will turn out to be less racist than I assume it is," but I really believe that it is time to move to the woods and plant a garden.




"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Andrea]

102. These two are in fact the business friendly longshots, as

you say. They are also the MSM favored, Republican approved longshots. We are in deep trouble.

I'm working for a draft of Al Gore if we don't have a nominee after the first ballot. Failing that, I will vote for whoever our nominee is, but I don't see us winning with Obama or Clinton.

I'd rather move to Canada than out in the woods and plant a garden (I have allergies), but we are all going to have to be prepared to take some extreme steps if McCain gets in.

[Crunchy Frog]

110. "Winning" candidates? The ones who were polling at 1-2%?

[Tesha]

128. Read my reply #127, just above.

And yes, it is entirely possible (in our current system)
that the candidate who could win the General Election
for us would get 1-2% in the Primaries while the winner
of the primary tops out at (say) 40% in the G.E. 'cause
everybody who will *EVER* vote for them has.

Sad, but true.

Tesha

[smalll]

143. Let me say thanks to you, Andrea and others on this sub-thread --

This sub-thread is the most clear-headed piece of GDP I've seen over the past couple of days. But don't resign yourself to McCain: as long as enough SuperDs DON'T commit and chose to ABSTAIN on the first ballot at the Convention, neither Barack nor Hillary will get to 2,024, and we can get to a second ballot where all bets (and all committments) are off. We can STILL end up with a Biden, a Richardson, an Edwards - or even a Gore. It's not over yet! :)

[Tesha]

147. From your mouth to Flying Spaghetti Monster's, uhh, "ears"!

If you'd like to know more about "acceptance voting"/"approval
voting", you canb read about it here:

o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting


If you'd like to know more about Instant-runoff voting, see:

o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting


And thank you for your kind words!

Tesha

[Andrea]

153. Thank you very much

It's so pleasant to have a reasonable discussion!

The hope of a second ballot is what I'm using to get through this. With over 300 SDs still not committed there is a good possibility.

There is a small grass roots group working on trying to get a Gore nomination. Please check out the link in my signature line. We'd love to have more help!

[Marrah_G]

151. Truth!

[Andrea]

97. In my opinion, they ARE both right

Neither of them has much chance of winning. We need a candidate that can win by a large margin, or else the Rs will steal it again. If either of these gets the nom, they will lose or it will be just a squeak of a win. We are in huge trouble.

[LWolf]

152. They ARE both "right," in this case.

From the perspective of this Democrat, who supports neither so has nobody to defend. I don't think either of them will win the GE.

What then?

I hope a brokered convention, and a "compromise" candidate who CAN win.

[Andrea]

154. Right, that's our best hope

It would be a tragedy to hand this over to McCain.

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. That's not a truth, that's a baseless prediction...

founded on the false assumption that Clinton is a stronger candidate (which she isn't). If Obama will get 'crushed' in the fall, Clinton will get obliterated, and they'll have to send forensics teams with DNA-testing kits out to find what's left of her political corpse. Anyone who thinks Hillary is a more viable or electable candidate, or that her nomination won't sunder the party and alienate a tremendous portion of voters, is completely out of touch.

[rodeodance]

9. BHO fans make these predictions/myths everyday-then claim they are the truth.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. Obama's not the one with a 55+% unfavorable rating.

Obama's not the one who's passionately HATED by the right wing, and whose candidacy will motivate them to vote AGAINST him. Wake up and smell the reality. I know it's hard, when you're totally delusional, but try, at least. Hillary Clinton is neither popular, nor likeable. This is a fact. Her ratings overall have improved by four points since the beginning of the campaign. Despite the field having narrowed from seven candidates to two. She has high, and insurmountable, negatives among a large percentage of the population. If you really think that this means she can win the general election (which is a ridiculous notion, anyway; she can't and won't win the nomination) you're completely cracked.

[rodeodance]

63. oops--O has 50 and Hillary has 51 unfavorable--dead Heat. new poll:

Overall, among all voters nationwide, McCain is viewed favorably by 54% and unfavorably by 43%. Obama’s ratings are 48% favorable and 50% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 46% favorable, 51% unfavorable (see recent daily favorable ratings).

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[PVnRT]

71. So do HRC fans

...and both are full of shit. So what's your point?

[Auntie Bush]

85. That's exactly what Obama supporters have done to one of our candidates

His supporters, the Corp Media and the left wing blogs have destroyed our best candidate. Thanks! Now this inexperienced man is suppose to be the most powerful man in the world. Thanks to Obama supporters we are going to have John let's bomb Iran McCain in that lofty position. Thanks guys!

[Spider Jerusalem]

92. Oh, for fuck's sake

Hillary did it to herself, and if you think she was EVER our best candidate you're sadly deluded.

[JVS]

5. Yet they think she has a snowball's chance in hell if she were to make it to the GE?

Yeah. Right.

[underpants]

7. Cries from inside the castle walls to help their friend

ignore this. They, politico and the other DC crowd, have no idea what is about to hit them in November.

The people is pissed.

[cali]

8. That's an opinion- not some infallible and undying truth.

Do try and learn the difference between the two. And it's an extraordiarily poor article. Naive democrats? You mean like Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Casey, Kerry, Nelson and Governor Sebelius? Yeah, they're the very epitome of naive, genius.

[DemVet]

24. You just can't post...

...a single thing without insulting someone, can you?

As much time as you spend on this board, it's obvious you lead a lonely, pathetic life.

I'll pray for you. You need help. :)

[cali]

26. Actually, I live a rather

pleasant life- though I must confess that the snow falling is a bit galling. And no, my life isn't lonely or pathetic. Sorry. And YOU are hardly innocent of being insulting- witness this nasty little missive I'm responding to. Not to mention hundreds of others. At least I don't pretend or indulge in your rank hypocrisy.

Cheers, hillbot.

:hi:

[DemVet]

146. You live a "pleasant life?"

Uh huh. :eyes:

Quit it...your lies are too obvious.

[rodeodance]

39. Leady pulled back from his comments as I recall. And I do think the Dem

party "leaders" are on the wrong side of history.

[cali]

47. You recall wrong. Leahy never pulled back from his comments

I actually listened to both his original remarks to VPR and to his follow up comments.

And you're right about leaders making the wrong choice! Look how many leaders endorsed Hills early. Look how few have endorsed her since the voting began. They surely are on the wrong side of history.

[powergirl]

10. If we all did what the Clintons' said

then Sen. Clinton would actually be winning the primary, which she is not. If they know so much, why is she LOSING. Voters decided who is the president, not the thoughts of the Clintons. She is not wringing her hands over Obama's ability to win the GE. She is PISSED that it is not her. period

:bounce:

[pocoloco]

11. Wah Wah It's my turn damn it!!!

[MethuenProgressive]

12. An Obama candidacy is a roll of the dice.

McCain/Lieberman would crush him.

[Tesha]

16. Whereas a McCain/Clinton race is a certainty: she'd be toast. (NT)

[Cassandra]

21. Feel the Joementum!

Has McCain told you something he hasn't communicated to the rest of us?

[reflection]

22. All campaigns are a risk

Not sure about the McCain/Lieberman "crushing" part either, although it would be a formidible ticket. However, that's a lot of pro-war sentiment on one ticket.

[immoderate]

87. A first! Lieberman could be losing VP candidate for both parties!

My prediction is that Obama will win forty states in the GE. :)

--IMM

[npincus]

15. change your DU name to "Oracle"

as you seem quite sure that you can fortell the future.

[CTyankee]

17. The self conceit of Politico is and has been for some time, quite evident.

This is a good example of the preening, self congratulatory MSM that seeks to permeate the political atmosphere with same old, same old. What this is, is nothing more than a racket, run by media elites whose very living depends on doing just what Politico is doing: politics of pull down, obscure and distort.

It's tiresome and I'm surprised that there are some DUers that are so ready to embrace it...

[rodeodance]

44. "The self conceit of" KO, Kos, huffington post. ect ect.....

[CTyankee]

90. What did KO say? n/t

[Hawkeye-X]

123. Someone needs to start scraping that makeup..

That's not the real Hillary Clinton!

[Bigleaf]

19. Didn't we hear last year that he was going to be crushed in the Primary? Hmmmm.

[Hepburn]

20. So now an unsubstantiated prediction = truth to Hillary worshipers.

:eyes:

Pretty ironic coming from a supporter of someone who loses to Obama.

[mod mom]

23. We're naive but Bill & Hillary failed to grasp the effects of 24 hr news cycle & the internet?

:rofl:

What you call "timid" we see as principled-sticking to the issues and responding to the gutter smear. The rovian (and now clinton/pennesque techniques turn off many voters sick of Washington politics of smears and LIES). Do you think the reason Sen Obama is bringing so many new voters into the fray is because he is timid?

those are nothing but sour grapes foisted by the likes of villains such as Carville and Mark Penn.

[countingbluecars]

27. Why are people

packing halls to hear Obama speak and registering to vote in record numbers? Why is he ahead in the race? Why is he gaining superdelegates? Hillary and Bill see their dream slipping away. I can only imagine what that must feel like. But to say she is staying in the race because Obama can't win against McCain is silly IMO.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

28. All Obama has to say is McCain equals Bush

and point to the devastated economy caused by a war that McCain wants to continue for a hundred years. No Republican is going to win this year.

[Kolesar]

31. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story,

... his coolly academic and elitist style.

Sounds like the two authors are testing out the RW talking points. Karl Rove said: "write a column about this". As for writing about energy or Iraq, "uh, would rather you don't. And here is a $100 million dollar ad purchase by Exxon".

[RoadRage]

33. The Irony in that statement is

that the Clinton's won't even try to look in the mirror and realize that they have ZERO shot of winning in a general election as well. Every time Clinton opens her mouth and says one more negative comment, she alienates thousands of more Obama supporters who hop from the "I don't like Clinton" side on to the "There is no way in hell i'd vote for Clinton" side.

I find it ironic that the woman who can't even win the popular vote in the primary seems to think that she can somehow gather enough votes to win a general election. Polls show that she does worse against McCain in a GE matchup, but that doesn't matter to her.

I think it really boils down to the fact that if SHE can't have the nomination and the presidency, then damnit - no one can. She'd rather see McCain take office then Obama in '09. That is the only thing that makes sense at this point. Because she is even LESS LIKELY then Obama to win the GE.

[MattBaggins]

95. You know what's really funny about it?

The Clinton followers have used open primaries as one of their largest talking pints. They claim the open primaries to be so unfair. We should only count the closed Democrat only primaries as showing the true support for Hillary and why the SDs should select her over Obama. They then turn around and say she will do better in the GE since she has a better chance of getting the votes of independents that voted against her in open primaries.

[MethuenProgressive]

34. k&r!

:kick:

[livingmadness]

35. Sheesh, how many times does the same story have to be

posted here? There have been TWO threads quoting it already - seems to have the Clinton supporters all giddy.

I've read the article and thought it was one of the more poorly argued pieces I've read on Politico (and that's saying something).

"She and Bill Clinton both devoutly believe that Obama’s likely victory is a disaster-in-waiting ... some friends describe Clinton as seeing herself on a mission to save Democrats from themselves."

Yikes. Given the current spat, WHO is it that is condescending? Bill and Hillary know soooo much better than the many super-delegates who have already endorsed Obama? And have appointed themselves the party-saviors? Oh the IRONY. And don't even get me started on their contention that the Clinton's have been handling Obama with kid-gloves "Far from a no-holds-barred affair, the Democratic contest has been an exercise in self-censorship" (I think I just vomited a little in my mouth).

The essential argument of the piece is that Obama is not electable. And they cast a list of the reasons why not against ... well, Hillary as a blank-slate apparently since nowhere do they attempt to compare a list of Hillary's, arguably many, and equally (though I would argue greater) worrying weaknesses in terms of the GE. Indeed they dismiss such a list as stuff Democrats already know. The 'she's been vetted' argument. BS - attention spans are notoriously short, and Obama has not come anywhere NEAR highlighting issues for Clintons (both) that will quickly remind those same Democrats of the agony experienced by many in WC's closing years. Added to that, Democrats in the traditional sense should not be relied upon alone to win the GE for either candidate. Indeed the writers argue this fact themselves (albeit inadvertently) pointing to Gore/Kerry as an example of high profile candidates who couldn't bring home the presidency (despite Gore's actual win). This more than anything indicates the D-candidate will have to be able to win a significant number but also reach outside of those traditional democrats in order to win the GE. And here HC's greatest weakness is exposed - her figures (no mention of these either whilst Obama's are covered extensively) evidence little capacity to do that and thus show her to be much more vulnerable in the GE. The hyper-familiarity they argue as being in her favor as far as negatives goes, is very much against her in terms of creating new appeal. New voter registrations have increased significantly over previous years, and those hard-to-get-to-the-booth voting populations - youth and African Americans, have been motivated like never before by Obama's candidacy. Sure, he will need to win a broader cross-section of voters than that, but the context of this years GE - increased bitterness over war/economic issues (which strangely never get a mention in the article despite having been identified as THE issues of the 2008 election), indicate a much greater likelihood of a Democratic victory than was the case in either 2000 or 2004. And given that neither candidate will enter the GE race without negatives to overcome, then if Obama can maintain his delegate lead, he should be given the shot like any other candidate would be. He has earned it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. Ah, you see, that's the crux of the Clintonites' argument, too.

That she's 'earned it', apparently solely by virtue of being Hillary Clinton. (As if being married to a President and carpetbagging your way into the Senate on name recognition are qualifications for the presidency.) That it was 'her turn', and the coronation should proceed as planned. (Never mind that she's losing the primary race.) That Obama is a foul pretender and usurper, who should be banished to the outer darkness for having the gall to challenge her majesty. (Never mind that Obama's won more states, more votes, and more delegates, built a stronger organisation that relies on grass-roots support, raised more money, and his candidacy brings millions of new Democratic voters.)

[ClassWarrior]

36. Just like the Clintons have crushed him, right?

:rofl:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

42. Do you really believe that McBush is that much more powerful than the Clintons?

NGU.

[mtnsnake]

37. Off the the GP you go for telling it like it is

:thumbsup:

[bowens43]

38. How many times are you crusaders goinr to post this bullshit?

It's obvious to all but the most ardent hill supporters that Obam has a much greater chance of winning the GE then HIllary does.

[PoliticalAmazon]

40. Hillary can't win the GE. Period....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5280301&mesg_id=5281280

[Starbucks Anarchist]

41. No, she's just mad she won't be getting coronated.

[progressoid]

43. Yeah, right. That's their motivation.

It's all about saving us from impending doom.

First I have to repeatedly apply this ball-peen hammer to my frontal lobe. Maybe then I can see reality like you do.

[rodeodance]

46. It talks of the Dems tradtional voters--which BHO has trouble with:

...But there is reason to question whether he would be able to perform at average levels with other main pillars of the traditional Democratic coalition: blue-collar whites, Jews and Hispanics. He has run decently among these groups in some places, but in general he’s run well behind her.

Obama lost the Jewish vote by double-digits in Florida, New York and Maryland — and that was before controversy over anti-Israel remarks of Wright.

An undecided Democratic superdelegate told us many Jewish voters are itching for a reason to break with the party and side with Republicans, who have embraced the Israeli cause with passion. A small shift could swing swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania, which have significant Jewish populations.
Obama won only about one-third of Hispanic votes on Super Tuesday — and did even worse a month later in Texas. A Democratic nominee needs big margins with Hispanics to win states like New Mexico, California, Colorado and Arizona. In the fall, Obama would be running against a Republican with a record on immigration that will resonate with Hispanics.

Then there’s the lower-income white vote. Does it seem odd that a woman with a polarizing reputation would be rolling up enormous margins among some of the country’s most traditional voters? Three out of every four blue-collar whites in small towns and rural areas of Ohio voted for Clinton over Obama on March 4. The reality is, this is already an electorate with deep cultural divisions — and that’s in the Democratic Party.

[Beacool]

49. I just had an interesting conversation this Saturday with a US Representative.

This is a senior Democrat in the House and has seen plenty of elections. In his opinion Obama has somewhat of an opportunity of winning the WH, but it's more than likely that he won't. This Rep. mentioned that certain things that a fellow Democrat will not use against another Democrat won't stop the Republicans. Heck, they are already planning it. He didn't mention specifics but the subtext was clear and we all know it: Rev. Wright, Michelle's remarks, his latest comments, Muslim name, etc.

Fair or not, they are going to pummel him with it.

[rodeodance]

64. thanks. i get the subtext--and it is true-The Repugs will use them.

[Beacool]

78. It was private conversation, if not, I would gladly say who he is.

It seems that there are rumors among some of the Dem. leaders that Obama needs more vetting. I just wish these same people had thought of it before he announced his candidacy.

[Danger Mouse]

51. Wow.

Just wow.
I should find this funny, but I can't...it's just too...too surreal.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

54. Color me STUNNED.

This reads like a National Enquirer headline.

[stray cat]

57. Does Hillary come with a money back guarantee if she can't win

only then would I take this seriously.

[kentuck]

58. Yes...makes perfect sense...

Hillary will do better against the Republican because she loses the majority of Democratic voters in the primary? Never mind that Barack Obama is a better counter puncher against the Republican tactics. I guess we are supposed to believe that the "Bill Clinton method" of triangulation is the only way Democrats can win? The Obama supporters will vote for Hillary but the Hillary voters will not vote for Obama? A totally irrational argument. Explain how someone that cannot win the Democratic voters in the primary can win the election over the Republican in the fall? You are probably correct that Hillary could win the election, but it would be by a slimmer majority than Obama. Then we could lose the House and Senate again but Hillary would be President so everything would be right with world bullshit.

[mmonk]

59. Why so many Obama can't win in November threads

from a devotee of one considered one of America's most divisive politicians?

[LaurenG]

61. The disaster is not going to be Obama

but you know how people can be, always believing that only they know how to run things. It's a control issue for starters and and ego thing secondly.

[grytpype]

62. Bullshit. Ignore on.

[DemVet]

148. Ignore is for the weak.

[PATRICK]

65. On ounce of possible journalism

in several pounds of bologna. I was trying to understand their take on their journalistic credentials and mostly what i got was an impression of how they are swept up into the fake US journalism tribe with its emphasis on punditry over investigation, opinion over fact, polls and establishment sources over other evidence, and the undying need to prognosticate and wildly. They barely got to the puzzle of why the journalistic scene(for want of an accurate description like propagandists in search of winners) is so bad and worse- has tipped its incompetence for all to see. They came in- as many posters here- as critics into journalism jungle and fall out of the same trees, accept the basic definitions and power- as hostile to truth and professionalism as they are- as the grounding for their improved offerings of pretty much more of the same.

Throughout this and several articles they participate in "bitter" hysteria without question, dismiss Obama's actual words and popular influence as a quantity that need not even be considered. This, in defiance of the first mistakes made by journalists and many others in underestimating Obama previously.
In other words, for all their self-examination, they are playing the horse race, the sound bite stampede and rewarding it with gloom and doom that refuses to grant Obama any chance, any success, any voice for that matter. there is no real reporting in this story but rather low level prognostication and old assumptions. "Jewish voters are waiting for an excuse..." So they polled and interviewed how many thousands or is their extrapolation simply their interpretation of the polling- which they strongly said they and other journalists had done so crappily, all the reasons smartly delineated.

So they did it again, superficially, with the pessimist crystal ball and the Book of Failures in their hands. Minus the hype there is nothing new, few things even interesting to make their site anything at all more than humble DU blogging. Minus campaign trail travel expenses and subscriptions to journals.

The things I found interesting. Not only is Richardson probably the best choice as Veep but it could jump start help in winning states like New Mexico and Florida. If there is a 'defense of israel" problem it could be handled two ways. The usual one where the rhetoric promises sane but reliable commitment for better solutions than the disaster in Iraq and stiffing the peace process. The second one of splitting the Jewish vote by getting them to argue exactly what path they want or would accept to preserving Israel's destiny. McCain is and should be cast as the one embarked claw in fist with the violent solutions of hardliner Israeli interests which both together and separately have no chance of success but only bloodshed and disaster diplomacy. Nor do the true interests coincide since the oil sheiks rule all and betrayal and at least turning peace itself into an non option is programmed into the political DNA of Bush stooges like McCain.

But whoa, I am getting into more detail without getting to the word bitter, repeated over rand over again. Malaise Carter, etc, etc. Childish name-calling and doom will make the voters rush like lemmings over the cliff. Like they did when both Kerry and Gore WON the last two votes despite millions of lost and suppressed votes? I didn't know the Messiah bar was in effect for American elections forever and ever because when we come to shooting Dems down we like to ignore certain portions of reality.

This site is bizarre and in need of what all Americans need. Distance from American journalism in 90% of its forms. Most, not all of what they want to lump into the "disaster" are known, are always fixed in cement and applicable just in different ways to everyone. Nothing that has happened in the primaries has seemed to inform this website into any better conclusions or any closer investigation.

What I would suggest is a better source to take some of the problems Obama "fans" in the different contest of the primaries aren't in the mood to face right now(nor do they have to, particularly). The next stages are: making something unified and good out of the Convention without Clinton taking out Richardson as Veep or any other throwing around of weight to much things up. Many are ready to swing back and honor her for stepping down after the next round. Experience seems to suggest, however, that she will not suddenly release all that clout for the selfless service of Obama and the party and progressives. After that last barrier to getting the party together is the switch from primary campaign(especially staff) to the national and trying not to get killed by friends like Brazile or Clinton crossovers like Carville. Or crummy strategy and "conventional wisdom" overall.

THEN you face the fool/fraud media all over again. As long as the veneer of McCain even if for the mere sake of maintaining a close horse race(the only weird application of the "fairness" doctrine you will see, applying a handicap to the old washout)the allying nonsense of smearing Obama in any way possible will continue.

Jesus Christ not only did not avoid saying things "stupid" and "clumsy" by establishment standards he got a death sentence by those illustrious elements of society for confronting the crap head on. And the true public sentiment is factored in about as honestly as Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedrin. It is interesting to see that some standards transcend mere religion and will be applied liberally to doomed Dems until the polls grudgingly show enough daylight to make the vast punditry to flee the GOP disaster- like rats alarmed that all the cheese is going down with the slave ship they abandoned. Meanwhile I hope we will have plenty and plenty of cats to greet them.

Bitter, bitter, bitter. Is that better?

[kentuck]

67. We should throw our best candidate overboard?

Because he gets the most Democratic support, he can't win in the fall. Why don't we just run Joe Lieberman? He would be the perfect Democratic candidate for some folks?

[PATRICK]

74. The OP opinion has little weight

even by its own frustrating standards. Realism. Fight smart. And throw pea-brained journalism(our fear is better than mere facts) under the wheels.

Despite the "alarming" banner of this post, there is nothing of real substance to worry about. At least no more than usual without giving McCain burnt offerings.

[Cameron27]

75. Are you sure about that:

"Because he gets the most Democratic support" Is Obama getting the most registered Democratic voters?

[kentuck]

80. So far?

Yes.

[grantcart]

66. great news since the Clinton campaign has been 100% wrong on everything else in this

campaign that means Obama is in for a landslide

[Oilwellian]

70. No surprise....

an obvious rightwing news source wants Hilly to be the nominee. She would obviously be the easy one to beat this Fall.

[BzaDem]

73. It isn't very stunning. It's somewhat obvious.

And YES, I will vote the democratic nominee in the fall happily. But I'm not under some kind of delusion where I think my vote will actually propel him from a massive loss to a win.

[PerfectSage]

76. What a load of fear mongering, condescending tripe.

That is why some friends describe Clinton as seeing herself on a mission to save Democrats from themselves. Her candidacy may be a long shot, but no one should expect she will end it unless or until every last door has been shut.

She's on a mission to save the democratic party from their stupidity. How idealistic. :rofl: And, all this time I thought she an extremely high need for power.

[GoesTo11]

77. Hillary is working to make this reality

To the extent Obama is facing challenges in the fall, it is because of her kneecapping campaign. So she can't say that she's running the kneecapping campaign in order to save us from Obama's presumed weakness in the fall.

[Andrea]

104. What?

"To the extent Obama is facing challenges in the fall, it is because of her kneecapping campaign."

Do you really believe this? You think that if he gets the nomination, McCain and the right-wingers will not attack Obama independently on their own? You think they have no oppo researchers of their own? You think they EVER exercise restraint?

The fact of the matter is that whoever our nominee is, the right-wing attack machine will go full speed ahead. Our job is to come up with a nominee that is the least vulnerable to this and so far we have done a horrible job.

The naivete exhibited here sometimes is stunning.

[GoesTo11]

112. I really do believe that. Here's why.

1) McCain can now quote Clinton instead of just saying things himself.

2) In the critical few weeks after McCain became nominee, the democrats could have taken the time to define McCain as out of touch, same old policies, etc. This would have been especially possible given McCain's being about broke and Obama having lots of $.

3) Instead, while the media is waking up to the general election, Obama, who is new on the scene, can't spend his time defining himself but instead has to spend time dealing with "shame on you", "snubgate", "periodically when she's feeling down gate", "bittergate" and all this nonsense.

4) She's pre-testing all these messages so that McCain will know which ones work.

5) People, especially Clinton supporters keep hearing the meme's from Clintonl, before they know much else about Obama, that he's sexist, elitist, racist. All these Clinton supporters who hate Obama because he's beating poor Hill and who want to vote McCain, or who hate Obama because Hillary would have left Rev. Wright, etc. are going to be much harder to win back after the convention than if Clinton had just been talking up her own qualifications instead of trying to swiftboat Obama - this makes a difference, because her supporters will listen to her but not to the GOP.

6) She's pulling independents to McCain away from Obama, by endorsing McCain as loving his country and passing the CIC test.

Yes, of course the GOP would have come after him with this stuff. But it makes a huge difference who gets to define the opposition first. Bill Clinton was able to define Bob Dole in spring and summer 96 because Dole was broke up through the GOP convention (spent all his fed $ in the primary), and what looked like a competitive race was a blowout. But John Kerrey was stuck with a funding disadvantage because he was stuck using federal funding after the 2004 convention, while Bush could keep spending large private funds for the month between the Democratic and Republican conventions. Kerrey got defined during this time.

So, yes, I think it makes a huge difference that in this critical time in the 2008 cycle, the Clinton campaign is doing McCain's defining for him. This is way out of the norm for how negative one party member goes on another, and the reason it's out of the norm is that everyone knows that it hurts the party's chances.

I say kneecapping, because, like Tonya Harding, her goal here isn't to beat him but rather to render him unelectable so that there'll be no choice but her.

No, this is not naive. It's thinking. What's naive is buying Hillary's line that she's vetting him, rather than softening him up for McCain.

[Andrea]

113. You original statement

"to the extent that", seemed to imply that he wouldn't have these problems if not for her. She is contributing to it, but she's not the sole cause of it.

I wish he would have been vetted at least a little bit before he declared his candidacy.

What I really wish is that neither of these very flawed candidates would be our nominee.

[Carrieyazel]

79. Yes, but here's another truth. Hillary cannot and will not win in the fall either.

Look at the electoral arithmetic. Kerry won 252 EVs in 2004. The three closest states were WI, NH and PA. Assuming she keeps the other states in the Dem "base", she will have to spend huge amounts of time and $$$ to keep these three states Dem. In November I see her narrowly winning PA, but she will struugle mightily against McCain in Wisconsin and New Hampshire. She could very well lose one or both, which finishes her off and puts McCain in the White House.

Even if she were to get to Kerry's 252, where else does she get the needed 18 EVs? She can't win Ohio, Florida, Colorado or Iowa in a general, so forget those. (Despite what some polling in Ohio may be showing now, when McCain starts campaigning in OH, she'll be sunk.)

That leaves Nevada and New Mexico, two of McCain's neighboring states. Hillary could win both narrowly, if she spends huge amounts of time there, but she'll be struggling hard against McCain.
She nets only 10 more EVs if she wins in both states giving her 262 EVs. Not enough. No other states are possible for her, (I know some of you are thinking Arkansas, but she doesn't have a prayer there).

[Andrea]

105. Didn't you get the memo?

You aren't supposed to post some rational opinion about the GE, you are supposed to pick either Obama or Clinton and then slime the other. Don't think about the GE, just get caught up in the identity politics of the moment.

:sarcasm:

[JasonHill]

81. This is Nonsense

Neither of the major candidates left will get crushed, and for anyone to characterize one of them in that way is only framing the debate in favour of the Republicans by giving them the a greater perception of winning. It hurts all Democrats to say either Hillary or Barack can't win, and it's time that all Dems stand up to this conservative nonsense.

[azmouse]

82. This is what I think of Hill and Bill's 'devout' belief:

[L0oniX]

84. Welcome to my stunning ignore list.

[SanchoPanza]

86. Interchangeable

You're Candidate™ is too dangerous to hand the nomination, and will easily lose to the Republican candidate in the Fall. My Candidate™ is our only chance.

Nevermind that the DNC has more money than Solomon.
Nevermind that the DSCC is looking to pick up at least five seats in the Senate, and that's a conservative estimate.
Nevermind that the Republican Party is in financial and logistical disarray.
Nevermind that the Republican Party is running in the shadow of a President with a 28% approval rating.
Nevermind that the Republican Party has nominated a Pro-War candidate who has Phil Gramm as his economic advisor.
Nevermind that this same nominee would be the oldest person ever elected to the Presidency.

The article makes a number of assumptions, one of which is rather huge:

1) That the "Jewish Vote" is just another name for the "Pro-Likud Vote", and Democratic Nominee who speaks ill of Likud Isreal will automatically cause every Jew in the U.S. to vote Republican. Coming from the breathtaking analytical skills I've come to expect from The Politico, this isn't surprising.

2) That McCain will do as well as George Bush in traditionally Republican districts. That's the huge assumption. Social and Economic Conservatives are still rather leary of him, and McCain's long-term strategy is to overcome that with independents. There's just one problem: Most of the independents are swinging for Obama.

3) Low-Income White Voters are voting for Clinton because... drumroll... she's white. Not at all the fact that she's a more known quantity (for better and worse) than Obama, or that they're prefering someone who has made their states the center of her campaign strategy. No. She's white. And look... so's McCain! They'll obviously switch to him in the General!

4) That because Clinton's baggage has been "rummaged through for years" she's a more difficult target for Republicans to portray negatively. As we've seen in both 2000 and 2004, the Republicans are not afraid to simply make new stuff up if the old stuff isn't working anymore, and just ramp up the quantity of smears until something sticks.

Ultimately, the article fails to cover the most likely reason for the extended primary season: Barring some major public relations nightmare, the Democratic Nominee will be the 44th President of the United States.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

88. Awww Hill is too busy dodging sniper fire to know

what november will bring..

[Vinca]

89. Guess that's why McBush has told his campaign people to lay

off Hillary because he wants her to be the nominee.

[Bensthename]

93. Thanks for the confidence in the Dem nominee.

[oasis]

96. k and r

[AX10]

101. At least...

it will be McCain. It would be a nightmare if it were Mittens Romney.

[AtomicKitten]

103. That specious, bitter allegation is moot since she can't beat him in the primary.

:hi:

[yardwork]

107. Polls show otherwise.

[aquarius dawning]

137. you mean like these polls:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history

[Crunchy Frog]

108. Hillary's a disaster any way you look at it.

She's a disaster of cataclysmic proportions waiting to happen, should she by some miracle get the nomination. Otherwise she's disastrously doing the GOP's work for them, relentlessly ripping into our only hope for taking back the White House this year. Hillary CANNOT get into the White House, but can only help prevent Obama from doing so.

I'm getting close to regarding her simply as the enemy, no different from McCain or Lieberman.

[Egnever]

109. guess we will find out in november

meanwhile we get to watch hillary dig her feet in like bush and destroy herself over one of her beliefs.

[zulchzulu]

111. The stunning truth: Hillary Clinton WILL NOT be the nominee...and...

Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

[Lord Helmet]

116. your crystal ball is broken

[hfojvt]

117. she's certainly working to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy

Many of us red-staters think that a Clinton nomination would hurt the party in all of its other races. That Hillary might win the white house while at the same time causing Democrats to lose the House and Senate just like she did in 1994.

[intaglio]

119. Yet again I must ask the simple question

If Obama is doomed then WTF would happen with Hillary was the candidate? Annihilation?

Remember that the only way she can win is if the Superdelegates overturn the popular Democratic vote and Obama's larger number of pledged delegates. This would be seen, rightly or wrongly, as the triumph of the dirty machine politics of the past.

1) She has far bigger negatives.

2) She is the candidate the GOP has planned for.

3) She would ensure - no matter what Barrack Obama said - that many non-partisan people of colour would either not vote or vote for the opposition. Note I do not say "Democrats".

4) She would alienate the young people who Obama has brought into the political process - and they will likely depart. Note I do not say "Democrats".

5) Some, if not many, Obama campaign workers would not work for a Clinton Campaign so she would have to set up her own new organisation. I do not say they will not vote just that they will feel unable to work for someone they will feel has won unethically.

6) Dean and the other modernisers would be kicked out in favour of DLC apparatchiks.

7) She could not play her Experience card vs McCain.

8) She has already praised McCain as a viable presidential choice.

9) There would be constant airplay of past scandals - on the grounds they show how resilient she is.

10) All of the new scandals about her donors (Hsu and many others) would be raked over.

11) Her support for NAFTA, CAFTA would be aired at length.

12) Campaign connections to a Columbian free trade agreement would be rubbed in her face.

13) Her inability to manage and plan a Campaign has been exposed and will be remorselessly played upon.

14) Her inability to manage campaign finances would likewise be harped upon.

15) Her failure with her first care health plan would be again hauled into the open.

16) They would make out that Bill would be the "real" President - unconstitutionally.

Again I ask that Hillary Clinton's supporters answer these problems with her candidacy. I do not expect answers because I do not think the Clinton faction are able to answer them. However if they cannot answer these obvious difficulties with Hillary's candidacy, she will not just loose the election but she will see herself humiliated and made a laughing stock; it might even be that the Democratic party would lose control of Congress.

[Hawkeye-X]

120. Yeah yeah yeah, tell me something new, doomsayer.

Polls before the Democratic eventual nominee right now doesn't make one whit of a difference. Whoever is the Dem nominee in the fall will be crushing McSame.

Hawkeye-X

[Fluffdaddy]

122. The Big O can not win in the General. Nov. 2008 will be a disaster

[kwenu]

124. More poisonous pablum from the Clinton campaign.

This garbage article is nothing more than Clinton dogma masquerading as journalism. It tells us NOTHING that we haven't heard before. Obama is going to be hurt in the GE by the same stuff that Hillary has already used to try to destroy him. His EXOTIC past? EXOTIC? Is that the polite way to say he's not white or at least not white enough? :puke:

To sum it up:

Hispanics won't vote for him because he's Black and Hispanics really don't like Black people (even Black Hispanics apparently). :puke:

Jewish people won't vote for him because he's Black and Jews don't like Black people and even if they did like Black people he had a Muslim father. Everybody knows you inherit your religion from your father even if he was non-existent in your life and you were raised by white christians.:puke:

Blue-collar White people won't vote for him because he's Black and blue-collar white people don't like Black people. It's okay to work with Black people but you don't want to put them in charge or anything.:puke:

Obama is in fact the racist because his pastor said something that could arguably be interpreted has having serious problems with White people like they don't treat Black people fairly. I have no idea where he could have gotten such a notion that White people aren't fair to Black people. :puke:

You don't want an angry Black man (or boy if you're so inclined) with his finger on the button. He might start a stupid war or something. He might deprive good decent patriotic white folks of their civil liberties and start illegally spying on them. :puke:

And Hillary is staying in the race, violating all sense of party loyalty because she has to destroy us in order to save us from ourselves and from our silly notion that America would elect a Black person as president. :puke:

We need to get real because we already know about her baggage and she will sail through. :puke:

That's a lot of nerve. If that is what is driving this election, then fine. The rest of the world can stand and watch America humiliate itself and finally put an end to the notion of America being a shining star that's better than every other nation.

:rant:

[intaglio]

125. And still no Clinton Supporter an answer my queries

If you think for 1 millisecond that Obama cannot win the GE, then you know for a fact that a Hillary Presidential run would make her more of a laughing stock than the one she is rapidly becoming. On the other hand of you do not believe this garbage in respect of Obama then you are left with the uncomfortable fact that he is mor likely to win the GE than Hillary Rodham Clinton

[Coexist]

129. well, good thing this naive Democrat has Hillary Clinton around to save me from myself

how would I make coffee and tie my shoes without her?

[rockymountaindem]

131. That's not the truth

That is (according to the article) the argument that the Clinton campaign is using to salvage their support among superdelegates, since apparently she can't convince them to support her on her merits.

[Hoof Hearted]

132. In other news today: Sky up, water wet.

K&R

[krkaufman]

133. Oh, so "stunning truth" is really just a Clinton belief. Got it. n/t

[returnable]

136. The stunning truth: Hillary is toast

Now buy a star, freeloader, or shut the hell up :)

[aquarius dawning]

142. How do you figure? Neither candidate has 2024 delegates.

We're moving into a number of contests where Hillary is heavily favored, there's still the Michigan/Florida issue and Barack will have to argue to the SDs that his victories in red state caucus elections which have given him a minor lead are more important than Hillary's overwhelming primary victories in the true blue states and the battleground states. Then there's the popular vote issue. I'd say it's way too early to call this race for BO.

[EFerrari]

139. More race baiting from the Clintons. Stunning.

:sarcasm:

[Kool Kitty]

141. Hillary started this campaign with incredibly high negatives.

Obama may not win, that's true, but if you think Hillary is going to pull off a landslide victory, I think you are wrong. The repigs would love to run against her. You know the shit they will do to her. If she gets the nomination, she gets my vote. But I think with either candidate, we have an uphill fight. I just think it may be tougher with her as the candidate.

[Beacool]

144. There's only 1% point now betwen her unfavorable ratings and his.

:shrug:

[Kool Kitty]

145. I just said that if she gets the nom, I'll vote for her.

(Not that she's my first choice, for sure, but between her and McCain, there is no other choice.) I just think it is going to be an ugly, ugly couple of months.

[Skwmom]

149. The stunning truth: The sky is green. Now if I repeat it often enough

I'm sure I can get people to believe it as fact.

The Clintons are desperate to spin their trying to destroy Obama for the general election.

[Marrah_G]

150. I don't think he will win the GE either- I hope I am wrong.