Insulting Your Voters

A very strange, repeated trope of the Clinton 2008 campaign has been to attack not Obama but groups of people perceived as likely to vote for Obama. Sometimes this takes the form of dismissing whole states, other times:

The strategist also said Clinton’s agents are making more subtle pitches.

“I’ve heard people start to say: Have you looked at the vote in Ohio really carefully? See how that breaks down for him. What does that portend?” said the strategist. “Then they point to Pennsylvania: In electorally important battleground states, if he is essentially only carrying heavy African-American turnout in high-performing African-American districts and the Starbucks-sipping, Volvo-driving liberal elite, how does he carry a state like Pennsylvania?”

It's a very strange way to behave. Presumably if magic delegates arrive out of heaven and give Hillary Clinton the nomination, she'll be expecting African-Americans and "the Starbucks-supping, Volvo-driving liberal elite" to vote for her, etc. Why would you refer to core Democratic voters in terms literally lifted from a Club for Growth ad?

Comments

Hillary's hope, such as it is, isn't that this convinces superdelegates, it is that unpledged superdelegates go for this argument by a 2:1 margin

Posted by Arnold Evans | March 22, 2008 9:07 AM

Whether I agree with them or not, I've never really felt a desire to shoehorn a Democratic candidate's voters & grassroots supporters into some category which would prove my point.

But I do feel like I hear such being done about Obama's voters and grassroots supporters. (And I'm not even talking about the weird obsessive compulsives who desperately try to do so in these comments every few seconds, in ways that would make the old CPUSA proud at how well the party line was being followed.)

Maybe part of that was beginning by supporting John Edwards, yet often finding that fellow supporters were not from the ideological or life categories I might have guessed on a first thought.

Posted by El Cid | March 22, 2008 9:09 AM

It's a very strange way to behave.

I guess that's a fair way to characterize Petey's behavior, but I thought you two were close...

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 22, 2008 9:12 AM

The reason they do it is because it works, and that's because his supporters fall neatly into a couple key demographics. Pointing out the need to move beyond these voters doesn't dismiss them.

Meanwhile, he just came out in favor of increased affirmative action for African Americans. Great way to improve his numbers outside blacks and liberals.

Posted by Cal | March 22, 2008 9:18 AM

And Obama is insulting Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania voters by wanting to dismiss them. Yada yada yada.

Demographics and constituencies matter in elections. That's not an insult. Don't be purposely dense.

Posted by Undecided | March 22, 2008 9:26 AM

Pointing out the need to move beyond these voters doesn't dismiss them.

"Starbucks-sipping, Volvo-driving liberal elite" is pretty dismissive language, is it not?

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 22, 2008 9:27 AM

Actually, unrelated to Obama, Clinton, or any campaign, as a resident of Georgia allow me to directly insult any of those Florida or Michigan voters who are whining about 'wanting to be heard' and all. I suspect that if our positions were reversed, and especially if Georgia had played such a constant role in screwing up national elections as Florida, your sympathies would be pretty stretched too.

My friends & family in Florida actually feel the same way, and are especially disgusted with the pathetic whiners who say that personally (not a predictor of probable public behavior) they will sit out the election or vote for McCain because somehow it will dry up their tears about how unrepresented they feel to have four more years of Reaganite loonies in charge of the country.

Posted by El Cid | March 22, 2008 9:32 AM

Starbucks is like the McDonalds of coffee. Its very mainstream. Theres simply no way there would be as many Starbucks franchises as there are, if their only customers were "the liberal elite".

How the hell did the Democratic Party allow such dirtbags as the Clintons become their most powerful members? Why are the rest of the Democratic power-brokers sitting on their hands when they could end this primary right now? Obama won a long time ago. Why don't the rest of the power brokers step in stop Hillary's mad quest for power?

The Democrats have a grand-slam, "once in a lifetime" candidate, that is being refused the nomination by the party's most powerful members. The other party has a far less perfect candidate, who is even despised by huge swaths of the base, and yet the GOP pragmatically rallied behind McCain weeks ago because it was the most practical decision.

It reminds me why I'm an independent. And while obviously I'm a rabid Obama supporter this time around, Democrats need to get their house in order if they want votes from people like me in the future.

Posted by nick | March 22, 2008 9:33 AM

Combine "microtrends" thinking with the Clinton campaign's general air of entitlement and thuggishness, and the insults naturally flow.

Dismissing Bill Richardson's endorsement as "irrelevant" because the heavy Hispanic states have already voted is another example. Richardson was certainly peeved to be seen as someone whose value is only as a "Hispanic," rather than as a leading Democrat who happens to be Hispanic.

Newsflash to Clinton people: human beings don't enjoy being pigeonholed on just one of their characteristics; they're far more complex than that.

Much of Obama's success seems to be attributable to his ability to speak to voters as fellow complex, thoughtful adults, not as various microtrends that need pandering.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 22, 2008 9:42 AM

I guess I better figure out which category I fall into before I vote:

I'm a woman over 40 - hmm, that must mean I should vote for Hillary.

My income is over $100,000 - oops, then I should definitely vote for Obama.

But wait, I like Dunkin donuts coffee! I must vote for Hillary!

Oh, but I guess my driving a Volvo trumps the coffee - it's Barack for me!

I'm so confused! Perhaps I should get some clarity by actually listening to what the candidates are saying about things that matter to me: foreign policy, the economy, and healthcare. But no, the media and pundits are much smarter than I am and I should let them tell me who I should vote for.

Posted by Stephanie | March 22, 2008 9:44 AM

. Why would you refer to core Democratic voters in terms literally lifted from a Club for Growth ad?

I don't see the objection at all. The advisors are saying that Democrats need latte-sipping liberals, various minority groups, and the nee-Dixiecrats like Petey. Which, while unfortunate, describes the shape of past coalitions, and therefore seems at least potentially true.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 22, 2008 9:44 AM

Link?

Posted by KathyF | March 22, 2008 9:47 AM

What's the downside to insulting Obama supporters? At this point, she wants the democratic party to be divided and broken for November so that Obama loses to McCain. Given the way dems treat their losing nominees, she'll be arguing that the party should have nominated her. She's already looking towards 2012.

Posted by Helter | March 22, 2008 9:48 AM

It's oddly miraculous that the primary system works at all. Speaking as an outsider to the process, I'm often dumstruck at the very personal umbrage that people display when their chosen candidate is questioned.

While I applaud you collectively for being able to wear your hearts so openly on your sleeves during the political process, I can't help but cringe over the fact that the candidates who are finally arrived at are the ones that are hated by the fewest.

That's how it looks to me, at least. Please vote with your heart *and* your head.

Posted by mongo | March 22, 2008 9:50 AM

Yesterday morning Joe Scarborough was sipping a syrupy sugared coffee concoction from Starbucks pronouncing to the word that only elitist columnist were impressed by Obama's speech. The blue collar workers he flys over as he makes his way from New York to Florida would never vote for Obama because he threw his grandmother under the bus, or something like that.

Posted by bjd | March 22, 2008 9:50 AM

I don't think Matt's being "purposely dense." He's making a very valid observation - Clinton is adopting wholesale a key Republican frame, and ostensibly she would in a general election be forced to abandon this frame, as it is offensive to a substantial number of Democratic and would-be Democratic voters. Its easy to see how, given this rhetoric, there might be a crisis of motivation among the African American and "liberal elite" (which I suppose is code word for "white people who vote for Obama") in the general. By contrast, Obama is hardly dismissing Florida and Michigan - show me, if you can, a similar example of Obama or his campaign making any kind of statement disparaging either of the states. And of course he's said nothing like this about Pennsylvania, as he would like to get as many votes as he can. So, no, its not equal for both sides - Clinton is very visibly and very loudly running Obama's group of voters through the mud, and this will do her no favors, since those persons just so happen to be integral to her victory in November.

Posted by C | March 22, 2008 9:51 AM

Much of Obama's success seems to be attributable to his ability to speak to voters as fellow complex, thoughtful adults, not as various microtrends that need pandering.

Perhaps I should get some clarity by actually listening to what the candidates are saying....But no, the media and pundits are much smarter than I am and I should let them tell me who I should vote for.

Ban, Stephanie: For better or worse, it is axiomatic in present-day American politics that any real analysis of the candidates' positions is utterly irrelevant. In the eyes of both the majority of commenters on this blog and the media figures such commenters claim to despise, it's 100% about selecting and tuning one's dogwhistles, forever and ever, amen.

Posted by James Gary | March 22, 2008 9:53 AM

Though I hate to defend the Clinton campaign, in this instance I feel like pointing out that this was not an "on the record" remark but a campaign-operative-to-superdelegate chat. (Which later got leaked.) And of course, we latte-sipping elites do like to disparage ourselves in precisely these terms in private. After which we go out and buy another latte to deal with the guilt.

So, in short, I'm not surprised by that part.

What I do find depressing is the way the dynamics of this campaign have led the Clintons to rely heavily on a defeatist attitude toward race in America, playing on Democrats' fears that in the last analysis Americans are too racist to vote for a black guy.

I don't think her campaign has had to do a lot to stir up those fears. They're out there, and don't need a whole lot of stirring. But when they peddle the Wright connection to superdelegates, they're playing on race-prejudice in a way that entails accepting the impossibility of changing attitudes. When they could be standing shoulder to shoulder. ("Whatever our other differences, I want to stress that in no way . . .") It's not unrealistic to expect a little more generosity on this topic than they have provided.

Posted by Ted | March 22, 2008 9:58 AM

Why would you refer to core Democratic voters in terms literally lifted from a Club for Growth ad?

To be a douche-bag.

Next question.

Posted by ed | March 22, 2008 10:01 AM

C--
Clinton is adopting wholesale a key Republican frame

Hey, I just remembered that I'm an economics columnist!

Posted by Paul Krugman | March 22, 2008 10:02 AM

1) There are millions of Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primary but who will also happily vote for Obama in the general election when he wins the primary in a legitimate fashion.

2) The superdelegates are not shutting Hillary down at this point because shutting down the primary a month early is not worth alienating those millions of Hillary Democrats. Continuing the process and allowing people to be heard is the price of gaining their support.

But the writing's on the wall. Especially if Obama stays within even 15 percent of Hillary's votes in Pennsylvania. North Carolina will nail down the coffin lid on Hillary if Pennsylvania doesn't.

3) I myself don't think Pennsylvania will go for Hillary in the largest majorities being floated by her pollsters. I'm in the Main Line suburbs -- there are several Obama events within a few miles of me today --and several hundred within 50 miles. I've not seen that level of war in past General Presidential elections.

Posted by Don Williams | March 22, 2008 10:02 AM

"Starbucks-sipping, Volvo-driving liberal elite" is pretty dismissive language, is it not?

Yeah, it is, although for me Bill's "don't really need a president but feel like they need a change" was the straw that broke the camel's back. And I don't drink Starbucks (water from a refillable bottle), drive a Volvo (Honda), or caucus (open primary). In fact, my state must count because HRC won its primary, even though she'll never win it in the general and the riffraff can vote in the primary. But since I'm college-educated, white-collar, follow politics carefully, unapologetically liberal, and support Obama I must fall into the offending demographics somehow. So that's fine; let her use her people to win and see if her campaign can frighten, guilt-trip, and otherwise bully Obama's voters into rubber-stamping her. I'm not playing along, but she may very well be able to squeak by for one cycle at least.

Posted by latts | March 22, 2008 10:05 AM

This is tooooooooooo funny!! Since when did anyone belive Hillary Clinton gave a CRAP about the voters. ALL she cares about is being president Period. How many STATES did she say "didn't count anyway"? Only the big states count, and ONLY if she wins them! All the states she lost covers more than half the country by now. She wrote off the population of entire states, so what's a few Starbuck sippers in comparison?

Posted by Martha | March 22, 2008 10:16 AM

I never owned a volvo, and I don't drink coffee (or latte), and I'm not african american, but I know that he is refering to me. In fact, he is refering to anyone that reads any part of "The Atlantic".

Posted by KevinQ | March 22, 2008 10:18 AM

1) To way to dismiss the Wright bullshit is to point out to the voters that it is a DISTRACTION that Hillary and the Right Wing are flogging as a way to pull voters' attention away from how they are being screwed --and screwed badly.

Obama should point out what Hillary and the Republicans are NOT talking about -- and make those issues center stage:

a) That Bush and past Republican Congresses let the Hedge funds/mortgage companies roam free -- and are not stealing $200 billion of our tax dollars to fix that mess. Are rewarding the very people who caused the train wreck.

When the WHite House talks of Bear Stearns share holders being punished, they're covering up how Bear Stearns CREDITORS are loading up sacks of money from the back door of the US Treasury.

b) Note that Hillary's claim of past "experience" appears to have been a deliberate lie , based on the WHite House records she's finally released. As was her claims in Ohio that she opposed NAFTA.
Ask Pennsylvania and North Carolina what lies she is telling them today?

c) Pound and Pound again on how Hillary and Bush's Iraq War has cost $1 Trillion that has greatly hurt the US economy -- because the economy withers when money is bled from productive investments and poured down the rathole called Iraq.

d) Point out how Hillary and George W have STOLEN $3 Trillion from our Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds -- that will go over well with the elderly in Pennsylvania. Ask Hillary why she was SILENT while Bush was stealing that $3 Trillion.

e) Going nasty on your personal behalf is a grave error. Going to war on behalf of the people -- giving voice to the OUTRAGE the people are feeling over their mistreatment by political crooks -- is being a leader.

f) Dismiss Glenn Beck , Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly etc as a pack of lying , deceitful shitheads who have gotten rich by bringing disaster down upon this country. Point out that the Report on Bush's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence was promised by the Republicans in 2004 but still has never been released due to Republican stonewalling. Point out the hypocrisy of those right-wing pundits in covering up and ignoring what Bush has done in the past. It was not Rev Wright who sent 4000 of our sons to die based on a lie.

Obama should call for reinstatment of the Fairness Doctrine in order to bring an end to this use of the Public airwaves to lie to the AMerican people.

g) Obama should point out Hillary's greatest negative -- she will always cut a self-serving deal with the Republicans at the opportune moment which betrays her Democratic supporters.

Posted by Don Williams | March 22, 2008 10:23 AM

Grrr. Correction to above post -- it should have said that Bush is " NOW stealing $200 billion of our tax dollars to fix that mess"

Posted by Don Williams | March 22, 2008 10:27 AM

I drive a 1997 Volvo 850 GLT that's really begging for an Obama 08 sticker.

Posted by Andy | March 22, 2008 10:32 AM

Hey Don, congrats -- you can go to work for the Obama campaign. Cause last week he did a, b, c, e, f, and g on your list. Great minds evidently think alike.

Posted by Ted | March 22, 2008 10:35 AM

"Why would you refer to core Democratic voters in terms literally lifted from a Club for Growth ad?"

For the same reason that in a NYTimes retrospective on five years of the Iraq war and occupation, the people given the time and space to bellow forth are all proponents of the war. The key for the DLC and Clinton and the media is to keep the control of the country and the economy in the hands of those who have been in control for decades. One hand helps the other.

Posted by della Rovere | March 22, 2008 10:42 AM

The other, corresponding, Republican frame that the Clinton campaign has embraced is their promotion of a demographically specific conception of democratic legitimacy -- Clinton is the candidate of the people because she is supported by a particular segment of white Christian voters, who count for extra. The only difference is that Clinton's version of this argument is much more specific than the Republican version, as it excludes white Christians in IA, MN, WI, CO, NE, WY, SD, ID and UT.

Posted by pjs | March 22, 2008 10:55 AM

Clinton is adopting wholesale a key Republican frame, and ostensibly she would in a general election be forced to abandon this frame, as it is offensive to a substantial number of Democratic and would-be Democratic voters.....Clinton is very visibly and very loudly running Obama's group of voters through the mud, and this will do her no favors, since those persons just so happen to be integral to her victory in November. --C

Based on past history (see her statements about Michigan) they would pull a 180 and try to claim none of this really happened. Someone would play tape, and she would say "Next question." Another reporter would play another tape, and she would say "I don't think it's helpful to talk about that."

Posted by Deborah | March 22, 2008 11:02 AM

Yes Matt, dismissing Obama voters this way is just about as stupid as deriding Clinton voters for being old women. Only the really dickheads among Obama supporters would say anything that stupid.

Posted by Gene | March 22, 2008 11:04 AM

SomeCallmeTim-- We need Dixiecrats? What decade are you living in, we're never going to win a true southern state again. The dixiecrats left in the party from 68-72.

Our coalition no longer includes them. The closest thing we have is white so-called 'ethnics' who hate black people. But most of them are concentrated in states we're going to win no matter what. I don't think they will be a serious factor in the fall.

Posted by Soullite | March 22, 2008 11:13 AM

All the Obama supporters here seem to be trying to explain why they're not part of the "latte-sipping, Volvo-driving elite," so I thought someone, such as myself, needed to chime in. I'm a young, white professional with a graduate degree living in a coastal metro area who still drinks lattes. While I don't drive a Volvo, I do drive a Saab.

Also, the quintessential car begging for an Obama sticker is not simply a Volvo but a Volvo 240.

Posted by Tyro | March 22, 2008 11:15 AM

But calling Hillary an unethical monster isn't insulting to her voters at all.

This place is bizarre.

Posted by Undecided | March 22, 2008 11:23 AM

All the Obama supporters here seem to be trying to explain why they're not part of the "latte-sipping, Volvo-driving elite,"

Nah, not really-- just figured I should be more specific about my consumer choices, since they're supposed to reveal my character or something. Since my background is arguably less privileged than Bill Clinton's, being called upscale (even on a decidedly middle-class income) isn't that bad. In fact, I aspire to an even more annoyingly BoBo lifestyle: a renovated bungalow in a walkable neighborhood (with solar panels, natch), a hybrid car, doing most of my grocery shopping at Whole Foods & from local sources, and so on. Haven't gotten there yet, but maybe someday...

Still not a coffee drinker, though. And if HRC prevails, I might decide to embrace political detachment & ignorance, making myself a more desirable voter.

Posted by latts | March 22, 2008 11:33 AM

latts, it's also been my impression that the stereotype of the fey cultural elite-types that Hillary's surrogate is trying to mock is that they drink tea, not espresso drinks. Criticizing someone as "latte sipping" is quickly going to sound a lot like criticizing "the youth of today" for doing all of that "break dancing."

Posted by Tyro | March 22, 2008 11:40 AM

calling Hillary an unethical monster isn't insulting to her voters at all.
It's insulting to Hillary , not her voters. And Power was let go by 9 am the next morning, but you know that.

Posted by bjd | March 22, 2008 11:41 AM

"But calling Hillary an unethical monster isn't insulting to her voters at all"

Well no, it's insulting to her, not the people who vote for her. Plus, that person resigned.

Posted by mad6798j | March 22, 2008 11:44 AM

Point taken, Tyro... I keep trying to learn to like tea, since it's supposedly got so many health advantages, but have failed so far. Really, I wish my weight, teeth, pancreas, & pocketbook would allow me to drink Cokes with real sugar constantly, but that ain't happening.

Come to think of it, being considered part of the "youth of today" is looking better & better with every passing year. Maybe my Obama support is really just an early midlife crisis, which would at least give the Clintonites a more accurate slur to use.

Posted by latts | March 22, 2008 11:51 AM

Don't the Clintons fall into the "White liberal elite" category? Does that mean they'll be voting for Obama?

Posted by Dave C | March 22, 2008 11:52 AM

You just don't get that bullshit from the Obama side.

Posted by chris m | March 22, 2008 11:54 AM

Why would Team Clinton say such things--repeatedly?

Maybe because they are seriously out of touch and don't give a damn about anything other than winning--whatever that may mean at any given moment.

I drink expresso. From my expresso machine. Starbucks is fattening and too expensive for me.

Our family drives a Volvo ... It's 17 years old. We'd like to be able to buy a new car -- even a new used car -- but simply cannot afford to.

So, yeah, I guess we're fancy coffee drinking, Volvo driving leftie elitists according to Penn World but we're also struggling to make ends meet along with millions of other Americans. And we're pulling for Senator Obama because we are old and wise enough to know better.

I'd love for someone to ask some of these folks what their poison happens to be and what wheels they're sporting.

Posted by charlotte | March 22, 2008 11:59 AM

Even if 'old white ethnic' voters in PA -- the Tweety demographic -- don't vote for Obama and deliver the state to McCain, there are alternative paths to victory, unlike Clinton, whose strategy is 'Kerry wins + Ohio'.

And that's a big 'if': PA, like NJ, will act like it's competitive, and prove otherwise.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 22, 2008 12:18 PM

1) I think Hillary --and her main subordinates and patrons --probably realize they've lost the nomination. I think they're hanging on in order to try to coerce Obama into accepting Hillary as Vice-President (truly a poison pill). By staging a floor fight at the Convention.

2) This would open the way for Hillary to become President (What Penn probably calls the "Martin Luther King Scenario". With a girlish giggle. )

3) In the meantime, Hillary would demand that 40 percent of the patronage slots be filled by her backers -- which would sink the Obama Presidency for the same reason that wood-boring worms sunk wooden ships.

4) The billionaire patrons of the Israel Lobby don't need to actually possess the White House -- they just need spies inside to observe what the WHite House is doing and to cripple/sabotage any actions the Lobby doesn't like.

Posted by Don Williams | March 22, 2008 12:30 PM

1) I think Hillary --and her main subordinates and patrons --probably realize they've lost the nomination. I think they're hanging on in order to try to coerce Obama into accepting Hillary as Vice-President (truly a poison pill). By staging a floor fight at the Convention.

2) This would open the way for Hillary to become President (What Penn probably calls the "Martin Luther King Scenario". With a girlish giggle. )

3) In the meantime, Hillary would demand that 40 percent of the patronage slots be filled by her backers -- which would sink the Obama Presidency for the same reason that wood-boring worms sunk wooden ships.

4) The billionaire patrons of the Israel Lobby don't need to actually possess the White House -- they just need spies inside to observe what the WHite House is doing and to cripple/sabotage any actions the Lobby doesn't like.

Posted by Don Williams | March 22, 2008 12:32 PM

Has the Obama campaign asked Starbucks for an endorsement? I see great potential for a synergistic marketing campaign that will bring the buzz!

Posted by Hussein Kvenlander | March 22, 2008 12:37 PM

There are no low blows in politics if the referee chooses not to see it. Suddenly Race in America is an issue when we Americans, to our eternal shame, have only addressed it openly twice in our 400 year conquest of the continent, prior to the Civil War and in forcing the Civil Rights era of the mid 50-60's. I knew it would enter this important race but expected it later from the openly segregated Republicans. It is a tactic, like gay marriage, used to dumb down the real issues and fire the base prejudice of the usually hidden dark and silent intolerant in all of us.
It's almost as though Clinton (campaign?) is using the mouths of the media to jump up at the 11th hour, point and exclaim "But he's a N....r!
Johnny Pennsylvania Lunchbucket wasn't inclined to view the midday speech by Obama who, unfairly at this time, felt obliged to discuss race in America (and do so admirably) nor seek out the rare replay, but know that Johnny did catch the incessant Farrakhan act of Obama's pastor.
How many millions of Catholics should we suspect of child molestation or Hagee's followers of gluttony?
Recognize this old ploy of hate and fear for what it is and start taxing these many 1,000's of "churches" who preach hate, holy wars, illegal immigration and intolerance from their pulpits.

Posted by StaggerLee | March 22, 2008 12:41 PM

There are no low blows in politics if the referee chooses not to see it. Suddenly Race in America is an issue when we Americans, to our eternal shame, have only addressed it openly twice in our 400 year conquest of the continent, prior to the Civil War and in forcing the Civil Rights era of the mid 50-60's. I knew it would enter this important race but expected it later from the openly segregated Republicans. It is a tactic, like gay marriage, used to dumb down the real issues and fire the base prejudice of the usually hidden dark and silent intolerant in all of us.
It's almost as though Clinton (campaign?) is using the mouths of the media to jump up at the 11th hour, point and exclaim "But he's a N....r!
Johnny Pennsylvania Lunchbucket wasn't inclined to view the midday speech by Obama who, unfairly at this time, felt obliged to discuss race in America (and do so admirably) nor seek out the rare replay, but know that Johnny did catch the incessant Farrakhan act of Obama's pastor.
How many millions of Catholics should we suspect of child molestation or Hagee's followers of gluttony?
Recognize this old ploy of hate and fear for what it is and start taxing these many 1,000's of "churches" who preach hate, holy wars, illegal immigration and intolerance from their pulpits.

Posted by StaggerLee | March 22, 2008 12:44 PM

WTF is this? As a member of the liberal elite I'm deeply offended by this. Starbucks' coffee is nowhere near as good as my neighborhood artisnal coffee roaster. The Clintons need to GET THEIR FACTS STRAIGHT. It's 2008, losers! Wake up!

And Volvos are SO 90s. It's PRIUSES now.

Don't even get me started.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 22, 2008 12:47 PM

One of the key components of Clinton's strategy is playing off the lack of self-confidence certain Democrats have felt since the 1980 and 1984 elections. The basic idea is that it is simply impossible for a Democrat to have broad appeal, and anyone who tells you differently is spinning a "fairy tale".

Of course Clinton has essentially turned that into a self-fulfilling prophecy, and she absolutely needs people to believe that Obama's appeal is even more limited and less likely to translate into broad support than hers. And the purpose of these insults is to not only characterize Obama's support as narrow, but also to trigger those general insecurities among Democrats by trivializing many of the Party's core supporters.

By the way, not only is all this insulting to many Democrats, it is also simply false. Outside of Clinton's core geographic regions, Obama has beat her up and down the income scale and among both white and black voters, including in many swing states. Unfortunately, the media largely lets her get away with this.

Posted by DTM | March 22, 2008 12:52 PM

I preface by saying that I dig Obama.

1. Hillary is hanging on out of political self-interest (in the hope that Obama will implode before the convention, or in the hope that Obama will lose the general and she can run against McCain in 2012) but also financial self-interest. She needs to keep her candidacy alive so she can raise enough funds to pay back all of her campaign's debts (including to herself) - see today's NYT piece. Unlike a corporation, her campaign can't declare bankruptcy -- she is ultimately personally liable for all those pizza bills.

2. This new blog "StuffWhitePeopleLike.wordpress.com" is a perfect exemplar of the Obama voter. Notice that all the affinities mentioned on there -- Whole Foods, film festivals, study abroad, sushi, gay friends, trendy clothes, etc. etc. -- are really the province of college-educated urban whites, not just any old whites. (But that would make the URL too long!) And, naturally, Obama is #8 on the list. To his credit, he's also won in places like Wyoming where there's no sushi or gay people (ahem), but that may be more a phenomenon of Hillary-hating than true love for BHO. [On the flip side, Hillary's support among the lower-information voters may be more a matter of name recognition than true passion for her personality and policies]

3. Judging by his non-sequiter comment about Israel in this week's Philly speech, Obama may not be much better than HRC on the Middle East, at least until after he's re-elected in 2012.

Posted by nbt | March 22, 2008 12:57 PM

As a Democrat I know I should give Clinton my vote if she somehow gets the nomination (though it's hard to see how she could do so at this point without essentially stealing it).

But she's so thoroughly convinced me that she'd be a very bad President, it'd be hard to vote for her. This is not about grudges or petty resentments about loose comments during the campaign. It's that she's shown a very poor, ineffective managerial style while running a cynical negative campaign which leaves me with a sense that she just doesn't have what it takes to pull this country out of what could become a death spiral. Because the only death spiral she seems to really be concerned about is that of her own political ambitions.

With her in the White House I'd expect more pettiness, more poor appointments, more stupid and self-defeating insult matches--and another commander in chief who prefers private fantasies to objective realities. And worst of all, more years of "leadership" by following America's worst tendencies, our fears, rather than actually leading people by challenging them to see and cope with reality.

She just doesn't seem able to get out in front of people and help them find the courage they need to engage with reality. She's adopted a "strongman" message: "I can take care of you." "I'm entitled to take care of you, and I'll hurt anyone who tries to take this prize away from me." Obama's putting forward a very different message, of calling on Americans to step up and take responsibility for our future. We desperately need that kind of leadership now.

Posted by Carol Jean | March 22, 2008 1:09 PM

yeah, but how much importance to place on an off the record quote, when there's no reason for it to be off the record? It could just be the reporter shopping for a `Clinton campaign' source who will tell them what they want to hear, to fit their media narrative.

Posted by roublen | March 22, 2008 1:15 PM

It turns out that black Americans and Starbucks-sipping, Volvo-driving liberal elitists are core members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Don't pretend you're surprised.

Posted by aleks | March 22, 2008 1:15 PM

Bill and Hillary are not part of the "elite," because they are tacky. Exhibit N: Bill's comments in North Carolina yesterday.

By the way, if I'm a superdelegate, I'm most concerned about her fundraising / campaign debts. The uncommitted superdelegates are likely conflict-averse, so they want any reason to take the easy way out. The candidate with the most money, pledged delegates, and popular vote tallies satisfies that concern. Further, Clinton can make these arguments re Volvos, but that does not mean anyone who has been granted a position of authority in the Democratic party should take them seriously.

Obama supporters from time to time complain about her tactic of trying to get the superdelegates to override the will of the electorate, and Clinton supporters come back with the claim that that's why the superdelegates exist. I don't see a risk because, as Matt notes, these arguments are just not good. The alternative to taking the easy way out is voting for the best candidate. It bears repeating that the best candidate -- to say nothing of probable best President -- is Barack Obama.

Posted by David B. | March 22, 2008 1:23 PM

Meanwhile, Nader is campaigning with a Biscotti in hand.

Posted by Velvet Elvis | March 22, 2008 1:29 PM

Has there been any settlement to the McCain funding issue? It would make life a lot easier if he were indicted for breaking the law.

Posted by Monster | March 22, 2008 1:33 PM

I'm a bit troubled by this distinction between low-information and high-information voters. The implication seems to be if voters have more formal education and earn more money that means their candidate preference is somehow more thought-out. The flip-side of that argument (as nbt pointed out above) is that low-information voters are making somehow less rational choices, or basing their votes on familiarity and name recognition. I would challenge the basis for such assumptions. I don't think there is any evidence that there is any clear correlation between rational decision-making and income, or even education-level. Is choosing Starbucks over DunkinDoughnuts about value for money? Or fashionable consumption? As Maslow's hierarchy of needs posited, the more money people have the more their consumption veers toward satiating their self-esteem and social position, rather than fulfilling their needs.

What if income and education tend to have a similar effect on voting patterns?

The more money people make (which is strongly correlated with education level) the less they base their decisions on concrete policies and proposals, and the more they focus on words, concepts, meaning and how the candidate makes them feel about themselves - on how the candidate inspires.

Posted by Tim K | March 22, 2008 1:34 PM

To be clear, I believe in democracy and I'm not saying that the votes of more-educated voters "count" more because they've analyzed things more rationally. I just think it's interesting that different population segments may arrive at their voting decision in somewhat different ways.

Tim K - there may be something to your argument about Maslovian needs, except it's not clear that low-income (which is not necessarily the same as low-info -- bohemian hipsters doing graphic design for a think tank are probably higher-info voters than a sports memorabilia entrepreneur pulling in seven figures) voters should pick Hillary because she's better at providing for their needs. The policy platforms of the two candidates are remarkably similar. And, contra Petey, Obama's health care plan is more likely to get passed, because he doesn't force anyone (besides children) to buy health insurance; he just makes it available and affordable for anyone who wants it.

Posted by nbt | March 22, 2008 1:57 PM

Compounding the problem, Team Clinton is trying to negate the difference between Hillary and McCain, and giving these demographic groups more reason to sit out this Fall.

Very odd, considering her strategy is to re-run the Kerry campaign but move one or two percentage points her way. All it will take is 5% of African Americans and Volvo drivers to sit home to blow the election.

(BTW, African-Americans would be better off if a higher percentage voted Republican, and then they wouldn't be so easily dismissed by campaign flacks.)

Posted by Mike | March 22, 2008 2:01 PM

I'm so fucking embarassed to be a Democrat right now. They should be 15 points up in the polls right now; their opponent is clueless and more of a hawk than Bush. Yet the infighting is going to cost them the election. Which would make many of us, I'm sure, leave their incompetence behind forever and become Independents.

Posted by Monster | March 22, 2008 2:06 PM

Obama respects ALL voters and shows up everywhere to ask for their vote. Hillary micro-slices and dices the electorate and her people (including our ex-president) constantly dis portions of the electorate and/or the process the party has set up. I am sick and tired of this and want the party to gather around our nominee, Barack Obama.

Posted by Ruth | March 22, 2008 2:08 PM

The flip-side of that argument (as nbt pointed out above) is that low-information voters are making somehow less rational choices, or basing their votes on familiarity and name recognition. I

Income and education level are only tangentially related to whether or not you are a high or low information voter. You are conflating income and education with "information." I guess that is why the term is "low-INFORMATION" voter and not "low-income" voter. I know plenty of high-income, highly educated LOW-information voters; they are generally people who aren't all that interested in politics and get most of their news by occasionally watching CNN. I also know plenty of low-income, high-information voters. You could say that low-info voters skew low-income and vice-versa, but that is hardly surprising.

The more money people make (which is strongly correlated with education level) the less they base their decisions on concrete policies and proposals, and the more they focus on words, concepts, meaning and how the candidate makes them feel about themselves - on how the candidate inspires.

You should really consider writing a book on Liberal Fascism, because I think Jonah made the exact same argument in his book. Just remember IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. It was the latte-sipping liberal elites in Nazi Germany who based everything on "inspiration" and emotion, and not the uneducated jingo know-nothings.

Really, as with Hillary, you are just making a familiar GOP argument: it's the liberal elites (Democrats) vs. the "real" American hicks (Republicans). You people sound like Republicans more and more every day.

Posted by jim | March 22, 2008 2:28 PM

Dick Morris says, “Hillary Clinton was deeply involved in the White House's inner workings only from the time of Bill's election through the Democratic defeat in the congressional elections of 1994 … But Bill Clinton saw his loss of Congress as owing to Hillary's policies and ideas. He felt that his presidency had been captured by a liberal phalanx that included the first lady and such staffers as George Stephanopoulos and Harold Ickes. He … exiled Hillary from the White House, asking her to mix the largely ceremonial duties of her “job” with writing, speaking and policy advocacy. Her key role in the White House was a thing of the past - and remained so through all of 1995, 1996 and 1997 … So Hillary's experience, real enough in 1993-94, led to a total disaster, the first loss of the House for the Democrats in 40 years:” http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 22, 2008 2:29 PM

I) Counting MI and FL votes, hillary is only 80,000 votes behind that she can surpass in PA, IN, and WV. Hence from the popular point of view, there is no real advantage in Obama's camp, and it is why they want to push her to quit before they get behind the popular vote again;

(II) She has won ALL the big state with the exception of Il. She has won also readily swing states such as NJ and NH. She has also won key southern swing states such as Arkansas and TN. Hence, she is very likely to win big in the November election.

(III) Obama's collection of delegates comes from caucuses in small republican states that are quite unlikely to go to democrats. So, even though impressive, they do no mean much.

(IV) I think that it is too early to forecast anything. Please read history :) .... Bill clinton was selected in JUNE and he is the ONLY DEMOCRATIC president during the last half century to be elected twice. What is the rush? I think that Obama campaign wishes to wrap it up, as they know full well that the OBAMA bubble will deflate sooner or later.

Let's give the opportunity to the most qualified person to prevail.

Hillary 08 ! :)

Posted by Meg | March 22, 2008 2:49 PM

A) Meg, it's 800,000.

B) I'm disappointed that Petey has not arrived to give us the Clintonista party line

Posted by Pooh | March 22, 2008 3:03 PM

It's insulting to Hillary , not her voters. And Power was let go by 9 am the next morning, but you know that.

Insulting the candidate implicit insults the supporters. Again don't be dense.

And plenty of Obama's "agents" - to use Matt's term - have accused Hillary of being unethical and a traitor to the party. Power was the only one dumb enough to say it on the record.

I'm not much for anecdotes but here's one for you. I live in the Harrisburg West Shore area. Last month I asked the lady who cuts my hair what she thought of Hillary and Obama. She's kind of a social conservative but doesn't really follow politics. Maybe a Huckabee voter. She said she didn't really know much about Obama but thought he was a good speaker.

Today, I got my hair cut again and she couldn't wait to tell me how she would never vote for Obama after hearing what Wright said. I asked her if she never disagreed with her minister. She said her minister never said God Damn America or that America purposely gave people AIDS. I pointed out that Obama had denounced all that. She said she didn't believe him - that he wouldn't have been in that church if he didn't agree.

Maybe she needs to drink a couple lattes.

Posted by Undecided | March 22, 2008 3:04 PM

As Politico.com has made clear, it is time for Hillary to go. That would give Obama time to do what McCain is already doing: Finding the strongest running mate possible. Here's the best rundown of how that process should work that I've seen:
http://digits.hrblock.com/ssDigits/digits.php?rType=1&sPath=1140&sNode=1140&uId=198

Posted by GHarri | March 22, 2008 3:09 PM

As Politico.com has made clear, it is time for Hillary to go. That would give Obama time to do what McCain is already doing: Finding the strongest running mate possible. Here's the best rundown of how that process should work that I've seen:
http://digits.hrblock.com/ssDigits/digits.php?rType=1&sPath=1140&sNode=1140&uId=198

Posted by GHarri | March 22, 2008 3:10 PM

The polls are showing that Obama is falling by 1-2 percentage points every day versus Hillary.

The Pennsylvania primary is in 31 days, so it's probable that Hillary will beat Obama by 30 percent!

Hillary's a-surging, baby!

Posted by Ringo Meza | March 22, 2008 3:12 PM

The polls are showing that Obama is falling by 1-2 percentage points every day versus Hillary.

The Pennsylvania primary is in 31 days, so it's probable that Hillary will beat Obama by 30 percent!

Hillary's a-surging, baby!

Are you being sarcastic? Because Obama is back up over Hillary in the latest polls.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 22, 2008 3:17 PM

Ringo's an idiot, baby!

Gallup, which Petey pleasured himself to the other day, has Obama ahead post-speech: http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

(BTW, check out the totals for Democrats, the only people who count.)

Re: Meg
"I think that it is too early to forecast anything."
Except Hillary "winning big," eh?
This post follows the idiocy of the Clinton camp's reasoning: that losing a primary means you will lose it in the general, and that winning a primary means you will win it in the general.

How's this? Obama has more votes, states, and delegates. By the only objective measures, Obama has won. But let's add in some bullshit about states that count. Let's ignore that Obama also makes VA, WA, CO, WI and maybe even NC and NE winning swing states, and there's pretty much no way he'll lose CA, NY, or MA. And if Clinton doesn't destroy him first with more lies like NAFTA, he should win PA in the general.

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 22, 2008 3:24 PM

Insulting the candidate implicit insults the supporters.

Tim K, don't treat us like idiots. You made a stupid statement and got called on it. The correct response from you is "Touche'" or, "you're right, I was too hasty to use such a false equivalency."

At the rate you're going, you're nothing but a living, walking insult to Hillary supporters. Every post you make associates them with the likes of you, making them look bad.

Posted by Tyro | March 22, 2008 3:25 PM

And yes, I meant for "the only people who count" to be interpreted sarcastically.

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 22, 2008 3:27 PM

Certainly the Clintons can carry less about the voters in Mich.or florida. She wants to win at any cost. One factor is that the attake on Obama's race from her campaign makes it uneasy for me to vote for her.

Posted by Larry | March 22, 2008 5:10 PM

Certainly the Clintons can carry less about the voters in Mich.or florida. She wants to win at any cost. One factor is that the attake on Obama's race from her campaign makes it uneasy for me to vote for her.

Posted by Larry | March 22, 2008 5:10 PM

Hillary Rodham Clinton, ready to do and say anything to win, ready to lie on day one.

Posted by Katy | March 22, 2008 5:14 PM

WAKE UP, PEOPLE!

You're the last true die-hards...the ones who will follow the Great One to the bitter end and bravely sip the suicide fruit punch.

Obama is collapsing and you want to wrap yourself in the fantasy narrative of rabbid, unreconcilable anti-Clintonites and the far left of the Democratic Party. They're rhytmically muttering the same mantra over and over again: Hillary's out, Hillary's out, Hillary's out.

But she ain't. And she will win this nomination. And she will win in November.

Obama's collapsing and Hillary's a-surging, OH YEAH!!!

Posted by Ringo Meza | March 22, 2008 5:56 PM

If Clinton cared about MI and FL, she wouldn't have hired people who voted to strip them of their delegates, such as Ickes, to be her advisers. She also would have said something at the time. Her superdelegate lead also depends on support from DNC insiders instead of elected officials, meaning the very people who stripped MI and FL of their votes support her.

Also, the very demographic that Penn has repeatedly attacked was the same demographic that he said was going to be the future of the Democratic Party. In fact, Penn and Clinton had planned strategy around this for her New York Senate run. In fact, coming from blue Massachusetts, I can say the "Volvo-driving latte-sipping liberal elite" were the only people who liked her there in the 1990's. When my working-class Democrat-voting friends' parents' would talk about her, the most common response were "bitch" or an eye roll over whatever weird thing she was saying again. The first time I heard someone really say something nice about her in Massachusetts was around 2002 coming out of the mouth of one of a highly-educated teacher at a liberal New England prep school. The idea that there is a strong working-class, especially male working-class, connection to Hillary Clinton out there is simply silly. Low-information voters are simply one of the only two major demographics, the other being Latinos, that she hasn't lost. She had African-American and well-educated liberal support and lost them. Bill handed her just about the entire Democratic Party as a support base and she leeched major support. Obama had to build up his own machine and convince people to change from Clinton to him. Guess what, he's winning.

Posted by Reality Man | March 22, 2008 5:59 PM

Obama, after all of this has both 1) higher overall positives than Clinton and 2) overall positives among Democrats and independents. Clinton lacks positives among independents. In fact, Bill Clinton now has net negatives because he has lost any warmth many African-Americans once had for me. This Wright business seemed to be the big piece of dirty laundry that was absolutely going to sink Obama and it appears not do have made much of a blip outside of those who watch Hannity and would never vote for a Democrat. Even after all of this, both Clinton and Obama poll the same with McCain, when McCain had a very good week of touring Iraq, meeting with foreign ministers, etc. and Obama had his worst week of the campaign. Ringo Meza, we would be the last of the die-hards if it wasn't for the fact that Gallup actually now has Obama up over Clinton. He handled the Wright business well by talking to the American people as intelligent adults. Meanwhile, Clinton expects us to believe singing around Europe with her daughter, Sinbad and Sheryl Crow and being read a poem by a little girl on an airport tarmac are dangerous undertakings that show she is experienced. When you believe the lies she is peddling on experience, you will believe anything.

Posted by Reality Man | March 22, 2008 6:12 PM

Obama's response to Florida and Michigan, and to states where he's lost, has been pretty different in general than the Clintons. He does seem to be somewhat cynically trying to gut chances of a Michigan revote. But whatever his machinations, he's never actually come out and said that white working class voters or the old or women, or Hispanics don't matter, or should be considered less important than other voters. Instead, he tends to say things like, "well, they don't know me well enough yet", right? I mean, that's his take on Hispanic voters -- he argues that he did well with them in Illinois, and will do better with them as they get to know him better.

That's a pretty big difference, it seems to me. And it's NOT because he's a more demographically restricted candidate than she is. Both of them have demographic strengths and weaknesses, but she's gone out of her way to say that certain groups don't matter, and he hasn't.

Part of it, of course, is that he's winning, and she's desperate. But I think that there are issues of character, message, and simple decency involved as well. But I'm sure Clinton partisans will disagree....

Posted by NoahB | March 22, 2008 6:29 PM

One ran toward the party bases, and the other ran against partisanship and division.

The entire Party primary process -- and our 2-party system--is inherently divisive, oppositional, and partisan by design. No President except for Reagan has won a majority of both Party's voters in recent history. People disagree and fight because they care about things and fight for them, and fight against things they don't want. None of those things are the same for both Democrats and Republicans, and there are NO important issues we can get together on--even when a majority of the country wants one thing (universal single-payer healthcare, an end to Iraq, more jobs, cheaper stuff, etc). Both parties are beholden to powerful moneyed interests that prevent all unity and bipartisanship--unless it's to benefit those interests.

Posted by amberglow | March 22, 2008 6:35 PM

Clinton just got exposed lying her ass off about her trip to Bosnia.

Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich - a corrupt oligarch.

Clinton - BOTH of them - is a lying, corrupt bitch.

So all the Clinton rah-rah types here can shove it.

Obama may be a loser President - I consider them ALL loser Presidents. But it's not yet proven that he's got a thirty five year history of corruption and lying.

At least it's likely to take him a year or two before he starts a war with Iran. McCain will do it in six months, and Clinton in the first year.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 22, 2008 6:39 PM

What I do find depressing is the way the dynamics of this campaign have led the Clintons to rely heavily on a defeatist attitude toward race in America, playing on Democrats' fears that in the last analysis Americans are too racist to vote for a black guy.

It's not that white and Hispanic Democrats are too racist to vote for a black guy. It's that they have no reason or desire to vote for an inexperienced liberal.

The only reason Obama is ahead in pledged delegates is because he's black. Black voters are supporting him because he's black. Obama supporters might want the 60% of white Democrats and 67% of Hispanics to vote for Obama, but they're not obliged to drink that particular Koolaid.

It's amazing how people think it's racist to oppose Obama, instead of wondering if his race is creating an anomaly that will put the Democratic party in danger.

And please, spare me the "Oh, Dems will support whoever the nominee is". No, they won't. If white Democrats think that Obama was allowed the nomination despite being unelectable, don't count on all of them following along obediently.

Posted by Cal | March 22, 2008 7:21 PM

Is Cal really Geraldine Ferraro in drag?

This character ignores the numerous states where Obama out-pulled Clinton in every demographic except old white women.

If white Democrats won't support the black Democratic candidate, then I'd say they deserve to lose to McCain - because they're racist assholes.

"vote for an inexperienced liberal."

Like Hillary?

Hillary has absolutely no experience whatsoever that Obama doesn't have. That has been established by any number of people reviewing her legislative and political history.

And she has considerably more CORRUPTION experience than Obama has been established to have.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 22, 2008 7:35 PM

The only reason Obama is ahead in pledged delegates is because he's black. Black voters are supporting him because he's black.

Cal,

By your logic, when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were running for president they should have overwhemingly won the black vote, but they didn't. Majority of black voters are supporting Obama only because he is viable.

FYI, Obama has won states where he got majority of the white vote. And even where he lost the state, he still won the white vote i.e., California.

Posted by Micheline | March 22, 2008 7:46 PM

I think the HRC is using that langauge because she is running as a Republican (with a health care proposal). Were she the nominee, all the Ds would be stuck with her, and she would be able to pick up a large swath of Republicans and Independents that (a) like Republican policy and (b) dislike McCain.

Posted by puget sound octopus | March 23, 2008 12:19 AM

I think the HRC is using that langauge because she is running as a Republican (with a health care proposal). Were she the nominee, all the Ds would be stuck with her, and she would be able to pick up a large swath of Republicans and Independents that (a) like Republican policy and (b) dislike McCain.

Posted by puget sound octopus | March 23, 2008 12:19 AM

I think the HRC is using that langauge because she is running as a Republican (with a health care proposal). Were she the nominee, all the Ds would be stuck with her, and she would be able to pick up a large swath of Republicans and Independents that (a) like Republican policy and (b) dislike McCain.

Posted by puget sound octopus | March 23, 2008 12:19 AM

I think that HRC is using that langauge because she is running as a Republican (with a health care proposal). Were she the nominee, all the Ds would be stuck with her, and she would be able to pick up a large swath of Republicans and Independents that (a) like Republican policy and (b) dislike McCain.

Posted by puget sound octopus | March 23, 2008 12:19 AM

I think that HRC is using that langauge because she is running as a Republican (with a health care proposal). Were she the nominee, all the Ds would be stuck with her, and she would be able to pick up a large swath of Republicans and Independents that (a) like Republican policy and (b) dislike McCain.

Posted by puget sound octopus | March 23, 2008 12:20 AM

This character ignores the numerous states where Obama out-pulled Clinton in every demographic except old white women.

You're delusional. Obama hasn't outpolled Clinton in every demographic in any state but maybe Illinois, which is one of the only three states where he won white Democrats.

By your logic, when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were running for president they should have overwhemingly won the black vote, but they didn't.

Sharpton was never a serious candidate. Jackson, however, did win the black vote overwhelmingly in every state he ran. Guess what state primaries he he won? Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Virginia.

Gosh. I wonder what all but one of those states have in common? (Bill Clinton pointed this out--except then everyone called him racist.)

He also won caucuses, as he had a fair amount of support from liberals.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 12:51 AM

psst, Cal,

don't let it get around, but I hear the Weekly World News has photos that show that Obama won by busing in black voters for the primaries in Idaho, Utah, Maine, Iowa, Dakota, and a few other states. He did it at night so no could see. But in Wyoming he was really devious. He got his Cheney relatives to vote for him there. After all, he can only win in black states.

like I said, don't let this get around. the Clinton team plans to release the photos the day before the PA primary.

Posted by top secret truth | March 23, 2008 1:52 AM

psst a second time, Cal

Nice move trying to fake Obama into thinking that Puerto Rico has already voted and that he won. This will be just like Michigan, where the DNC coaxed him and the others to drop off the ballott. Low hanging fruit for Hillary.

Also a nice move to make Maryland and some other states disappear . . . Colorado? Vermont? We all know Illinois doesn't count. Certainly Hawaii is a joke. And Washington. HA! Talk about latte drinkers! They invented Starbucks up there!

You are integral part of the team, Cal, and I have it on good authority that after Hillary loses her Senate seat in the election The Family will not forget you.

By the way, did you hear the one about Obama claiming that he ran for cover from snipers when he landed in Bosnia? And you know who he was trying to save there, don't you?

Remember, it take 35 years of experience to cook up lies like these.

Posted by top secret truth | March 23, 2008 2:04 AM

My favorite three words that define this campaign season and HRC's supporters in particular:

Low Information Voters

Posted by Elrod | March 23, 2008 2:09 AM

But, Matt, you do the EXACT SAME THING! The Obama campaign does the same thing!

Honestly, I really like your blog. I have been reading it for a long time. But I feel like when you look back on your primary coverage in a couple months after you've simmered down, you're going to be embarrassed.

Posted by Caitlin | March 23, 2008 2:27 AM

Dear Hillary,

It's over. Ask Bill.

Go Obama!

Posted by Michael | March 23, 2008 2:48 AM

Pssst, top secret. I was talking about Jesse Jackson.

I know, you're one of those people who think all blacks look alike.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 11:19 AM

Reality Man and others:

What actual evidence is there that Barack Obama is doing better than Hillary Clinton among high-information voters? The reason I discussed income and education-level is because there is evidence that support for the candidates divides along those lines. But I haven't seen any evidence in exit polls or surveys to suggest that "high-information" voters are voting for Obama while "low-information voters" are voting for Clinton.

I think it's nothing more than an attempt by Obama supporters to imply they are somehow smarter and more sophisticated than Clinton supporters. And a rather transparent and self-serving attempt at that.

Posted by Tim K | March 23, 2008 2:45 PM

The best electability strategy for Democrats is to check to see who the liberal activists, Hollywood, Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, etc, like the most and vote for the other major candidate.

Posted by Tim K | March 23, 2008 2:47 PM

Tim K - Really? Do you think Kerry was a better candidate than Howard Dean would've been? OK, Kerry was decent-but-not-great, but Dean could have been awesome.

Posted by nbt | March 23, 2008 7:47 PM

Dean would have been creamed. It was a pretty polarized electorate so he still would have carried the major Democratic states, but none of the swing states.

It doesn't necessarily follow that because a more moderate, centrist candidate loses that means the more left-wing candidate would have done better. The self-styled "democratic wing of the Democratic party" likes to think that the true blue nominee would always do better because they would be sticking up for strong Democratic principles and values, but that's not necessarily true. George McGovern was probably the nominee the most in sync with the activist Left of the party in recent memory and that was a disaster.

Posted by Tim K | March 23, 2008 10:06 PM