Wine and Dine

Via Nick Beaudrot, Granite Prof generates an "elite score" for various Democratic contenders based on their performance in different parts of New Hampshire. Nick comments "As you can see, yes, Obama is the wine track candidate, as are all insurgent challengers. But he is less wine track-y than almost all other challengers."

Throw in the fact that the wine/beer balance is shifting over time in the Democratic party in favor of wine, and that Obama has tremendous strength among African-Americans of all tastes in beverages, this explains how Obama becomes the insurgent who wins.

Comments

Bah! This is meaningless. Everyone knows that, just as the liberal/conservative split has two axes (economic and social) so does the potent potable divide. The beerists range from Miller* to Guiness while the winers aren't all Chateau Lafite Rothschilds drinkers; you got your T'bird and Morgan David drinkers too.

*Technically, Pabst Blue Ribbon would be beyonf Miller, but everybody knows PBR drinkers don't vote.

Posted by Njorl | March 24, 2008 1:01 PM

Ha! I often go around saying Obama is the best candidate since Udall.

Posted by Hunter H. | March 24, 2008 1:07 PM

Obama is both a wine track and malt liquor track candidate.

Posted by Jim W | March 24, 2008 1:09 PM

Njorl, I think you're forgetting the hipster PBR drinkers who are supporting the wine-track candidate.

Posted by KCinDC | March 24, 2008 1:27 PM

Aren't these results a little misleading? If Obama had been running against a male candidate, he surely would be done better among white women voters - which would have likely shifted the apparent demographics of his coalition.

Posted by arbitrista | March 24, 2008 1:35 PM

Where's John Kerry on the chart? Wasn't he the supreme "liberal elite snob?" Or did he drink beer after an exhausting day of windsurfing?

Posted by SMN | March 24, 2008 1:39 PM

Aren't these results a little misleading? If Obama had been running against a male candidate, he surely would be done better among white women voters - which would have likely shifted the apparent demographics of his coalition.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Posted by jbryan | March 24, 2008 1:53 PM

I'd also be interested to see where Paul Simon fell on this list, since I think Obama has drawn quite a bit from Simon's mentorship. Generally, I think this is helpful analysis, but doesn't capture the manifest importance of regionalism in this contest (meaning that in places like Iowa and Wisconsin, you might get a different picture).

Posted by DTM | March 24, 2008 1:56 PM

Obama won Wisconsin by HUGE margins. The home of the Milwaukee BREWERS for f***sake. Not to mention the rest of the Midwest and much of the Mountain West. Can we please put this whole wine/beer track garbage into the wastebin????

Posted by More Axe | March 24, 2008 2:06 PM

More Axe,

Obviously I agree, but I have become convinced that most of the people in the media simply cannot be bothered to grapple with the cultural differences between different parts of what they consider "flyover country". So, they are happy to have the excuse to ignore inconvenient caucus states, and to drop primary states like Wisconsin down a black hole, simply because all those states don't fit with their lazy two-dimensional models.

Posted by DTM | March 24, 2008 2:18 PM

Obama is both a wine track and malt liquor track candidate.

Jim W,

LOL. That's a good one.

Posted by Micheline | March 24, 2008 2:23 PM

Obama is both a wine track and malt liquor track candidate.

Jim W,

LOL. That's a good one.

Posted by Micheline | March 24, 2008 2:25 PM

"Obama is both a wine track and malt liquor track candidate."

Exactamundo.

And his inability to expand into beer territory is precisely why he's permanently stuck at 45% of the Party.

The upscale goo-goo / AA coalition is certainly enough to get him close, but his inability to stretch the Obama brand beyond that in the wake of 2/5 really is pretty stunning.

Posted by Petey | March 24, 2008 2:31 PM

The upscale goo-goo / AA coalition is certainly enough to get him close, but his inability to stretch the Obama brand beyond that in the wake of 2/5 really is pretty stunning.

Posted by Petey

.. where "close" = "nominated", "stunning" = "imaginary" and "Petey" = "Dumbass"

Posted by Face The Music | March 24, 2008 2:40 PM

Oh, and add Petey to the list of people who apparently cannot be bothered to look at a frickin' map.

And let me give a shout out to More Axe for noting the absurdity of overlooking that Obama won in the home state of the Brewers. And he also won in the states that host Coors Field and Busch Stadium.

Posted by DTM | March 24, 2008 3:01 PM

"Obama won in the home state of the Brewers"

Even in Wisconsin, which has probably been Obama's best state in terms of expanding his appeal beyond his upscale goo-goo / AA base, he still lost white Democrats. (Though he did do better among them than usual.)

Posted by Petey | March 24, 2008 3:09 PM

The upscale goo-goo / AA coalition is certainly enough to get him close, but his inability to stretch the Obama brand beyond that in the wake of 2/5 really is pretty stunning.

That's fine. I'd rather real Democrats decide the contest, though I know you've made your alliance with the turncoat Reagan Democrat faction.

Posted by jbryan | March 24, 2008 3:14 PM

Petey,

Non-Democrats are allowed to drink beer too.

By the way, Wisconsin is just one of many states where Obama beat Clinton among lower-income voters, starting in fact with the very first contest, Iowa.

Posted by DTM | March 24, 2008 3:40 PM

By the way, Wisconsin is just one of many states where Obama beat Clinton among lower-income voters, starting in fact with the very first contest, Iowa.

DTM,

Unfortunately, the reality that's difficult for Petey to confront is that Obama is winning the votes of real Democrats and that's why he's running away with this nomination. Clinton has won some faux-Democratic votes, but those don't count because they're all coming from the anti-party Reagan coalition. It's good that Petey has made his peace with those who are seeking to destroy the party, but the real Democrats won't stand for that and we're going to make sure the nominee of true Democrats wins, notwithstanding his shocking willingness to sell out its principles.

Posted by jbryan | March 24, 2008 3:44 PM

jbryan, one of Petey's blindspots is the fact that he thinks that the anti-party Reagan coalition voters are the be-all and end-all of what the Democratic party should be trying to win. It's a blind spot of his that he believes that these are the only voters who "count." He simultaneously forgets that forming a coalition where these voters are the main constituency you have to cater to causes you to do things like whole-heartedly support the war in Iraq. Petey tends to forget that expanding our military obligations runs directly counter to his other goal of expanding the safety net and welfare states. You can't have both, and Petey needs to realize that if you're going to expand the safety net, you need to jettison the voters agitating for more war.

Posted by Tyro | March 24, 2008 3:50 PM

jbryan,

I don't know if you are just pulling Petey's chain, but in case you are not, I want to note I disagree with you. Hillary Clinton is getting the votes of people who particularly like Bill and Hillary. The key piece of evidence for this thesis is the very strong regional nature of her support, which aligns very well with what we would expect from a Democratic Senator of New York who was also Bill Clinton's First Lady in Arkansas.

Personally, I don't think the fact that these people particularly like the Clintons makes them better or worse people than anyone else voting. I also think it says very little about Obama's ability to beat McCain among these groups, for the somewhat obvious reason that McCain is not in fact a Democratic Senator from New York and former First Lady of Arkansas.

Posted by DTM | March 24, 2008 3:58 PM

Ugh. One thing that really turned me off about the Dean campaign in 2004 was his "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" stuff. I suppose division on who we think ought to be the nominee is inevitable, but I really wish we could avoid division on who's a real Democrat and who's a faux-Democrat.

Of course, it is kind of silly to claim to be a die-hard, Yellow Dog, partisan Democrat taking a bold stance against bipartisan mushiness on the one hand and to avow the intention to vote against the party's prospective nominee after he wins the nomination on the other. Still, no one is a fake Democrat unless they're actually trying to infiltrate the Democratic party on behalf of the GOP or something. Some Democrats have hawkish foreign policy views, some Democrats are pro-life, etc. You can say that when they get sufficiently to the right, they're no longer liberals, or no longer progressives, or whatever, but so long as they honestly support the Democratic Party over the Republican Party, they're not faux-Democrats.

Posted by Julian Elson | March 24, 2008 4:27 PM

Unfortunately, the reality that's difficult for Petey to confront is that Obama is winning the votes of real Democrats and that's why he's running away with this nomination.

Actually, Petey has declared that Obama's support comes from "upscale goo-goo's," which is at least more interesting sounding than latte-sipping liberals.

Previously, he had dismissed Hillary's support as "low-information voters," essentially calling them out for having their heads up their asses before becoming the champion of the working man that we see before us today.

Having essentially dismissed the value of the entirety of the Democratic party (reserving a small niche, I suppose, for poor white policy activists), he now thinks that risking a McCain presidency by voting for Ralph Nader is a good thing to do.

Not exactly the guy I want to listen to for advice on how to be a good Democrat.

Posted by Brad L | March 24, 2008 4:39 PM

As a New Hampshire resident just a few comments:

Good post. I can't find the methodology for this study. Were the rich southern NH towns like Hollis, Hudson, Bedford, Amherst, and Windham included? If they were excluded these elite scores would be much more drastic as these have a combined population of about 100,000. The elite towns I think of (Keene area, Hanover/Upper Valley area, Portsmouth/Greenland, Peterborough area) have a combined population in that ball park. Out of about 3,000 votes cast in my town (Bedford) Clinton won by exactly 16 votes (which actually helps Obama because it reduced Clinton's percent margin statewide)! These five rich towns combined were incredibly close whereas the other "elite towns" went comfortably for Obama. This is probably a result of a lifestyle difference. The people in these small New England mainstreet communities are more likely to have been lifelong NH residents and have chosen to accept a sort of exurban lifestyle, whereas the fast growing areas along the I93 and Route 3 corridors are populated more with people who live there because of the vibrant economy and Massachusetts transplants. Another thing to keep in mind about New Hampshire/Northern New England is that the cities and suburbs trend Republican and the small towns trend Democratic--the opposite of most of the country. Finally consider the following--Obama nationally wins (or beats his state average) in the areas that tend to vote for Democrats for President--Hillary wins (or beats her state average) in places that tend to vote for Republicans for President. New Hampshire was for the most part no exception to this trend.

Posted by Robert | March 24, 2008 5:06 PM

I don't think there's anything question that Obama's candidacy is pretty much an amalgam of the Uddal/Hart/Tsongas/Bradley and Jesse Jackson wings of the Democratic party, African Americas and so-called wine-trackers. The question is how electable these candidates are in the general election. The only candidate to score high in this "elite index" was George McGovern, and he was a complete disaster. But, in fairness, a sample of one case isn't exactly anything to draw any strong conclusions over. Would Mo Uddal have beaten Ford in 1976? Would Hart have done better against Reagan? Would Tsongas have done better than Clinton? How about Bradley against Bush in 2000? Obama's strong support among African Americas is putting him over the edge for the Democratic nomination but it's not going to do anything for him the general election.

Posted by Tim K | March 24, 2008 5:39 PM

Tim K,

As I have pointed out to you many times before, there is a very serious question about your description of the coalitions in question, seeing as how it becomes completely inaccurate once you go farther west than the Appalachians.

But I guess you don't have a map available.

Posted by DTM | March 24, 2008 5:52 PM

Questions about how well Obama will do in the general will be answered in November. Until and if he wins, he's won the right to lose.

Anyone that has a problem with that shouldn't be calling themselves a Democrat.

Posted by Face The Music | March 24, 2008 6:05 PM

Tim K,

The problem with your analysis is that you assume that many of Clinton's supporters would not vote for Obama in the general when we know that is not the case. As others have pointed out, we need to look at the Democratic party primary on a regional basis. Obama does well in the Mid-West and Mountain West whereas HRC does well in the Northeast and Southwest. States in the south are going to go any Democrat because the white working class are not going to vote for any Democrat. So I am not including that region in the mix. I think the best thing for Obama to do is to use the fifty state strategy while campaigning harder in certain regions.

Posted by Micheline | March 24, 2008 6:06 PM

PLEASE DISREGARD THE POST ABOVE.

Tim K,

The problem with your analysis is that you assume that many of Clinton's supporters would not vote for Obama in the general when we know that is not the case. As others have pointed out, we need to look at the Democratic party primary on a regional basis. Obama has done well in the Mid-West and Mountain West whereas HRC done well in the Northeast and Southwest. In the general election states in the south are NOT going to go to any Democrat because the white working class won't vote for a Democrat. So I am not including that region in the mix. I think the best thing for Obama to do is to use the fifty state strategy while campaigning harder in certain regions.

Posted by Micheline | March 24, 2008 6:11 PM

DTM:

Just because you say something a lot doesn't mean you're right. I'm talking about the sort of voters Obama does well with. Just because Obama wins a state Uddal or Bradley didn't win doesn't mean he doesn't draw from similar voting coalitions. The Democratic electorate is not static, so it's also possible that more affluent and educated "wine-track" Democrats are also a bigger part of the party than they once were. In fact, I think that's undoubtedly true. Again, we're talking voters and demographics, not states and maps.

Micheline:

Obama simply is not going to win states in the Mountain West. That's just not going to happen. A 50-state strategy would be a disaster. Obama has to worry about carrying Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey, while working hard to win Ohio and Missouri. If he's spending a lot of time and money wasting his time in Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Alaska that will be a gift to John McCain. Do you think McCain is going to distract himself by campaigning in Rhode Island, Hawaii and DC?

Posted by Tim K | March 24, 2008 6:40 PM

"Previously, he had dismissed Hillary's support as "low-information voters," essentially calling them out for having their heads up their asses before becoming the champion of the working man that we see before us today."

That's because yesterday, I thought John Edwards was a better champion for the interests of the working man (and woman) than Hillary Clinton.

But today, Edwards isn't in the race, and Clinton picked up the banner on the most consequential piece of legislation that will come up in the next four years - universal healthcare.

Clinton is definitely my second choice, but she's the lesser of two evils left in the race.

Posted by Petey | March 24, 2008 7:22 PM

"But today, Edwards isn't in the race, and Clinton picked up the banner on the most consequential piece of legislation that will come up in the next four years - universal healthcare."

Meaning forcing people without health insurance to buy health insurance, meaning that Clinton's own voters will be forced to do something they don't want to do. But then again, white elites like you know so much better than them that you can make their decisions for them, don't you?

Clinton will have to work hard to win the Great Lakes / Upper Midwest and the Pacific Northwest before being able to focus on Ohio, PA, etc. while also not being able to carry any Southern states except Arkansas. Obama won't really have to fight that hard for the Pacific Northwest, the Upper Midwest (including Michigan), New Jersey (which simply isn't going to go to McCain), etc. while being competitive in places like Virginia. Even after Wright, he still has higher positives, over 60%, than both Clintons, with Hillary around 52% and Bill now as low as 45% (having lost African-American support). Clinton will have to work to play catch-up with angry black voters nationwide if she gets the nomination, which is going to be rather difficult. The anger against her is rather palpable.

Posted by Reality Man | March 24, 2008 8:39 PM

"Obama simply is not going to win states in the Mountain West. That's just not going to happen. A 50-state strategy would be a disaster. Obama has to worry about carrying Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey, while working hard to win Ohio and Missouri. If he's spending a lot of time and money wasting his time in Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Alaska that will be a gift to John McCain. Do you think McCain is going to distract himself by campaigning in Rhode Island, Hawaii and DC?

Posted by Tim K | March 24, 2008 6:40 PM"

My god, don't be overly literal. The Party has a 50-state strategy under Dean, but that doesn't mean Obama is going to re-do Nixon '60 and fly to Alaska. He's not being stumping in Alabama all the time and if that's what you get from reading people's comments, that just underscores how you read into everyone who isn't you being an idiot who needs the amazing Tim K to explain to them how the world works, which is why everyone thinks you're a douche. Being competitive in more states nationwide than Clinton's Kerry+1 strategy not only has a better chance of winning (going on offense instead of focusing on defense and forcing McCain onto defense) but also has a better chance of laying groundwork for a stronger part by helping to strengthen local party mechanisms in places like Kansas.

Posted by Reality Man | March 24, 2008 9:07 PM

Being competitive in more states nationwide than Clinton's Kerry+1 strategy not only has a better chance of winning (going on offense instead of focusing on defense and forcing McCain onto defense) but also has a better chance of laying groundwork for a stronger part by helping to strengthen local party mechanisms in places like Kansas.

It also means the Republican party will have to spend money in a lot more places, money its having trouble raising these days.

Posted by Face The Music | March 24, 2008 9:23 PM

Reality Man:

Maybe a lot of people here think I'm a "douche" and that's fine. Guess what? I probably do know more about politics than at least some of the people here (but not all). That does happen sometimes. Nobody here comes off as particularly modest or charitable.

You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that Democratic strategists in the Gore or Kerry campaigns got together and said "Hey, you know what would be great? If we only competed in 20 states. Ya, that's sounds great." These strategies are drawn up out of necessity based on the situation the campaigns find themselves in September. Unfortunately, outside of the Wonderful World of Disney or Narnia, or Fantasy Island or wherever some of you happen to be living in other than reality, electoral maps cannot be conjured up based on Hope or what people would like to see happen. Of course every Democrat would love to win Texas or Georgia or South Carolina again. But that's not going to happen even with a million dollar Ad buy or a bus tour with Senator Obama and wife Michelle.

The truth is that Obama's electoral map doesn't include any more states than Clinton's electoral map, except some of the states are different. Clinton's probably doesn't include Virginia, Colorado... Obama's doesn't include Arkansas or West Virginia... Clinton would have to spend more time shoring up Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota and New Mexico.... Obama would have to spend more time in Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Jersey. They are just different maps, and neither is anywhere near 50 states. If by 50-state strategy one actually meant 30 state strategy, then fine.

Posted by Tim K | March 24, 2008 10:27 PM

"You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that Democratic strategists in the Gore or Kerry campaigns got together and said "Hey, you know what would be great? If we only competed in 20 states. Ya, that's sounds great." These strategies are drawn up out of necessity based on the situation the campaigns find themselves in September. Unfortunately, outside of the Wonderful World of Disney or Narnia, or Fantasy Island or wherever some of you happen to be living in other than reality, electoral maps cannot be conjured up based on Hope or what people would like to see happen. Of course every Democrat would love to win Texas or Georgia or South Carolina again. But that's not going to happen even with a million dollar Ad buy or a bus tour with Senator Obama and wife Michelle."

Another example of you being a douche. Of course we all know that electoral maps are not conjured out of Narnia. What's the point of saying this? You aren't telling us anything we don't know, so you don't get to act superior. If you knew more about politics than most people here, you wouldn't think one of the most hated Democrats in the country is electable. The SurveyUSA map from a little while ago had Obama winning Michigan and Clinton losing it vs. McCain, so I'm not sure why Obama has to shore up Michigan while Clinton doesn't. After all, the fact that she barely squeaked by 50% against "Uncommitted" is a bit of a problem, especially considering any Democrat will need heavy turnout in Detroit's African-American population to win the state, which Clinton is unlikely to get. Obama is a lot more likely to in Virginia than Clinton is to win WV, where the locals think she's a communist lesbian. New Jersey simply isn't going to go Republican this time around. NJ likes to fake like it's a swing state and then go solidly blue. Your argument basically is down to Pennsylvania, which is kind of sad, considering you have to add in Michigan and New Jersey to your "Obama is too weak there" argument, which just suggests you are arguing in bad faith, which isn't surprising considering how you've been reduced to talking yourself in circles over how Clinton is somehow the experienced candidate who gets results.

Posted by Reality Man | March 24, 2008 11:09 PM

The Reality Man:

The same data you cite also has Obama losing Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Do you honestly think a Democrat can win the White House this year without those two states?

As for West Virginia, Survey USA data has the "communist lesbian" winning by 5 points, and Saint Barack losing by 18 points. As for Virginia, Obama is tied, while Clinton loses by 10%. So according to the polling company you refer to, Clinton is more likely to win WV than Obama is to win Virginia. I would think you'd actually check the data before you make outlandish and false claims.

As for Pennsylvania, the same data has Clinton up by 1%, and Obama down by 5%. In New Jersey Obama is tied with McCain, while Clinton is up by 5%. In Michigan Obama is up by 1%, and Clinton is tied. And finally, in Florida, Obama is down by 2%, and Clinton is ahead by NINE PERCENT! And for state like Florida, that's a big deal.

So while no one knows for sure who is more electable, there is plenty of data showing Clinton can win this election and Obama perhaps cannot. At least I'm betting on states that Democrats have always had to win to become elected, not states like Virginia that haven't voted for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 12:08 AM

Polling data is not a good predictor of what will or will not happen, especially when the data shows close races within the margin of error.

Throw in a new brand of voters in this election, and the historical data from past elections loses any sound hypothesis to support any reliable conclusions.

Posted by AKBY | March 25, 2008 12:30 AM

AKBY:

Fair enough, but he brought up the Survey USA data, so I just made sure everyone had a more complete picture of what that data actually had to say.

As for using history as a guide, I disagree with you. There is a reason why some states are historic bellwethers. Missouri, for instance, is (and has been) has been the demographic dead-center of the US population. But it is true that key states do change. California, Illinois and New Jersey used to be among the most competitive states swing states, but all are now reliably Democratic. Texas used to be a Democratic linchpin, and now serves the same role for the Republicans. That being said said, some states are long-standing bellwethers. The last 4 Democratic Presidents required Pennsylvania's electoral votes to be elected. West Virginia has been carried by every successful Democrat nominee for 96 years. Arkansas has been carried by every successful Democratic nominee. No Republican has won the presidency without carrying Ohio and Florida. So history does matter.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 12:55 AM

Tim K:

I know, just interjecting.

On the historical data, the only point I was making was that there are new voter blocks (esp. youth vote) and more Dems in general coming out in large numbers, and this makes the historical data less reliable, esp. in swing states and those on the margins. I agree with you, of course, that the long standing historical data on stronghold-states like Texas is still valid and useful.

Posted by AKBY | March 25, 2008 1:42 AM

Of course the polling data this far out in advance isn't that useful. However, it doesn't suggest that Obama has major problems in Michigan like Tim K claims, so I'm not sure where he's getting his data for that besides his own ass. Besides, the SurveyUSA polling had Obama still winning with a slightly bigger margin over McCain than Clinton could muster, even if he loses New Jersey. If Kerry can win New Jersey, any Democrat can win New Jersey. At this point we would need to nominate McGovern or Tom Brady to lose New Jersey.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the general election campaign hasn't started yet. The themes Clinton has been running on, experience and passing a commander-in-chief threshold, don't clearly cut in her favor vs. Obama (which explains why she's losing), but clearly cut in McCain's favor. The tortured war veteran-hero who worked with Kerry to restore US-Vietnamese relations and has spent more time in the Senate is going to beat someone running on inflated First Lady credentials, especially now that it turns out she's been lying about what she was doing as First Lady. McCain and his surrogates can belittle being First Lady in a way Obama can't when trying to appeal to feminists in a primary. She's not good on running on intangibles and narratives, which non-incumbents need to win (FDR could only run on the New Deal, especially Social Security, once he was the incumbent who had passed these programs). She won't have anything real to run on. Obama can construct his own narrative of change, can contrast youth vs. age to mean the past vs. the future, etc. Clinton cannot do this. It's also worth keeping in mind that she was supposed to win this primary in a cakewalk, yet she's losing to a first-term Senator with a funny name that no one heard of before 2004 while she had universal name recognition, the backing of the party elite and older feminists and warm feelings among general Democratic voters for her husband's administration. If she can fail this spectacularly in the first real electoral fight of her life and fail on health care in a way that allowed the Republicans to take back the House for the first time in 40 years, what's to say she won't fail a third time? Hell, she went through $30 million on her re-election campaign running as a Democrat in New York. She is not supposed to be in the position right now where we are arguing over whether she can plausibly win the nomination. She wasn't supposed to have to rely on superdelegates throwing her the nomination. She has gone from being even more popular among African-American voters than her husband to being hated by large chunks of the black electorate. Bill has net negatives now for the first time in years due to losing African-Americans' warm feelings for him. These facts should give anyone pause who thinks she can actually win the general.

Posted by Reality Man | March 25, 2008 3:20 AM

Tim K,

And just because you refuse to admit something doesn't mean it is false.

If you look at exit polls for the states West of the Appalachians and outside of the South, Obama beats Clinton among "beer-track" voters. That disproves your thesis about the nature of his coalition. Again, I know you won't admit any of this, but you are just wrong.

Posted by DTM | March 25, 2008 7:51 AM

That's because yesterday, I thought John Edwards was a better champion for the interests of the working man (and woman) than Hillary Clinton.

But today, Edwards isn't in the race, and Clinton picked up the banner on the most consequential piece of legislation that will come up in the next four years - universal healthcare.

I'm not really concerned with your motive. Just that the method that you chose for supporting Edwards was by dismissing the value of the very voters you now say are of utmost importance. Basically, you dismiss the worth of anyone that you happen to disagree with, which, over time, has turned out to be just about everyone. Which, I suppose, is why you now prefer Ralph Nader.

I used to have respect for you.

Posted by Brad L | March 25, 2008 9:20 AM

DTM:

Were those in primaries or caucuses? I rest my case.

Reality Man:

This phrase: "She won't have anything real to run on..." is interesting. What Obama is running on isn't "real", it's bullshit. Hope? Guess what? There is no hope. That's not a strategy, it's a sentiment. He might as well be running on "Politics of Love." At least then more people would see through it. And as for "a different kind of politics", there isn't anything "new" about that slogan. "New politics"? That's a term associated with the New Politics movement of the 1950's Democratic Party of Adlai Stevenson; Arthur Schlesinger memorably termed it "dough-faced liberalism." You want the party to nominate a latter day Stevenson? That's fine, but don't be whining when the results are no better.

And as for your criticism of Hillary's performance in the primaries, by your argument the Democratic party of 1972 was correct to nominate George McGovern over Ed Muskie.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 9:33 AM

Tim K,

Both: I have exit poll data from the primaries in Illinois and Wisconsin, and entrance poll data from the caucus in Iowa. Finally, I also have exit poll data from the Utah "caucus", which was actually more like a primary. In all four of those states, Obama beat Clinton among both white and black voters, up and down the income scale, and across the ideological spectrum.

Like I said, I know you will refuse to admit this evidence exists, because it destroys your little thesis. Unfortunately for you, however, you can bet the superdelegates are not going to be as willing to put on the blinders. Heck, they might even have access to maps.

Posted by DTM | March 25, 2008 9:43 AM

DTM:

ILLINOIS? Are you serious? Clinton won Arkansas by with 70% of the vote, and won quarter of the black vote in New York, but I don't think we can extrapolate anything from that to the rest of the country. Evening so much of mentioning Illinois makes a fool out of your argument. I don't count the caucuses because they are democratic farce, but okay I'll grant you the Wisconsin primary. He did very well there.

I agree with you that the overwhelming likelihood is that the super delegates are going to go for Obama, almost no matter what. That doesn't necessarily mean a lot of them don't realize the danger in nominating this man.

PS

I have no idea what your jibes are maps has to do with anything. Obama isn't going to win Utah anymore than Clinton would win Oklahoma. Geography, in itself, is irrelevant. What is relevant is which groups the candidates are stronger among and what that says or doesn't say about the general election.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 10:38 AM

Tim K,

Maps are relevant because if you bother to look at one, it quickly becomes obvious how important regionalism is to this contest. And that is the basic problem with your approach to figuring out from which groups the candidates are getting their support: you are just flat out ignoring regionalism, which no sensible person would do if they took a moment to look at a map.

And along those lines, that is why Illinois, Arkansas, and New York are not irrelevant. Sure, part of what is going on in those states is a matter of home team boosterism, but part of it is that these are the states in which Obama and Clinton learned politics and developed their political brands, and their appeal has manifestly spilled over into nearby and similar states.

And more specifically, what you just flat out refuse to admit (because it blows your little thesis out of the water) is that in Illinois, Obama learned how to appeal to people throughout the Midwest and West. That is why your little thesis is contradicted by the exit polls in Iowa, Utah, and Wisconsin, in addition to Illinois. And that is also why he has also won every single contest in those regions of the country by wide margins.

Finally, I get that you view the fact that a state held a caucus as a magic wand which wipes them out of consideration. Hence, your map of the United States would be missing huge chunks of territory--and not coincidentally, those would mostly be places in which Clinton has lost. So in your Clinton-tailored map of the United States, she is doing much, much better than she is doing in the actual United States. But again, Clinton supporters aren't convincing anyone but themselves with such arguments.

Posted by DTM | March 25, 2008 11:10 AM

DTM:

If regionalism is important to this contest then Clinton has just as strong an argument to make as Obama. The region that includes Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Kentucky and West Virginia is more important in a general election then the Rocky Mountains, especially for Democrats. It's even more important than the Upper-Midwest or Pacific North-West. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon and Washington all together have 46 electoral votes. Pennsylvania and Ohio alone have 41... add Arkansas and you get 47. Add West Virginia and that's 52. So as far as regionalism goes I'd prefer Clinton's regions of strength to Obama's. I grant you that Obama has real strengths in regions that Clinton does not, and I would never argue that with you. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have other weaknesses that arguably are more important.

Clinton still would have lost most (but not all) of the caucus states, but I firmly believe the results would have been much closer. If Iowa had held a primary I genuinely believe Clinton would have been a close 2nd, if not the victor. But that's not knowable.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 11:20 AM

If regionalism is important to this contest then Clinton has just as strong an argument to make as Obama.

Delegates are important to this contest. And she cannot win, despite your "firmly" held and "genuine" beliefs.

Reread Matt's "Or Maybe We Could Count Jellybeans" post.

Then read it again.

Then print it out, take it to a park or somewhere, and read it - again.

All of your "what if's" about changing the rules of the game are inconsequential and ridiculous.

The good news for you is that she wins all the primaries in which the winner is chosen alphabetically, and although you can't vote in the U.S., you can vote for her to be the President of Imaginationland, Tim. You can, if you just think about it hard enough, it will happen.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 11:28 AM

SoCalJustice:

Let me say this again in terms you might understand better: Obama is almost certainly going to be the nominee, and I think he has a better than even chance of losing. Capiche?

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 11:50 AM

Tim K,

You can be the Vice President of Imaginationland.

If you just think about it hard enough, it will also happen.

And that would be a dream ticket, indeed.

You and Hillary can land in Marine One, on the ellipse in front of the Sunshine Castle, under sniper fire, even.

Anything is possible in Imaginationland.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 11:55 AM

SoCalJustice:

Coming from somebody who's about as a gullible as a 6-year-old for buying the Politics of Hope/New Politics bullshit, that's pretty rich.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 12:15 PM

Ahh, so now the millions of voters (the majority of the primary electorate so far) have gone from cultists to just stupid kids.

It is a huge shock that Hillary's losing, indeed.

No worries, I'm sure her first term as President of Imaginationland - and don't forget Tim, you get to preside over the Imaginationland Senate and cast the tie-breaking vote - will be marked with all kinds of 3am phone calls in which she makes the right decision and - of course - there will be tons and tons of sniper fire.

It will be awesome.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 12:21 PM

SoCalJustice:

I never said "stupid kids" or "cultists" but if the shoe fits, wear it. It's gullible and naive to believe that Barack Obama is going to change the politics of the US, because he isn't.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 12:24 PM

Tim K,

First, you need to distinguish between primary arguments and general election arguments, because of course doing better in the primaries in a region doesn't mean you will do better in the general election in that same region. Which cuts both ways, of course, but the point I have been making up until now is that your claims about the nature of Obama's support in the primaries have been false, because your claims do not hold true outside of certain regions.

Second, neither Clinton nor Obama can put together a plausible winning general election map with just the states and regions in which they are doing well in the primaries, minus states very likely to vote for McCain. So if the Party was actually choosing between only Clinton's regions or only Obama's regions, they have already lost and it doesn't really matter who they nominate because that person is doomed.

Of course, this is all just a variation on the same fundamental logical flaw. Yes, Obama would need to convert most of Clinton's primary supporters in order to win the general election. But it is equally true that Clinton would also need to convert most of Obama's primary supporters in order to win the general election. And naturally the primaries are basically useless for telling us who is more likely to do that, because those people still have the ability to go with their first choice.

So, you have wasted a lot of effort on this task of proving that Clinton currently has the support of many people Obama would need to win the general election, because while that is true, the converse is also true. Hence, this doesn't amount to an electability argument that distinguishes one from the other, and that is why it hasn't been persuading superdelegates (who are too sophisticated to fall for something this dumb).

But I do think it was useful to point out that your little thesis about the nature of their primary support was false. Ironically, one of the implicit premises of many Clinton supporters is that if someone votes for Clinton, it isn't because they actually like Clinton, but rather it must be because they don't like Obama. So, for example, if the white people in some state vote for Clinton, it is not because they like Clinton, it is because Obama has a problem appealing to white people.

Pointing out the manifest regionalism in this race helps show the foolishness of this premise, because the regional effects map onto where you would expect the Clintons to be most popular regardless of their opponent. Conversely, the fact that Obama has no problem getting white voters (or low-income voters, or so on) outside of those regions also shows the foolishness of this premise.

Of course, that doesn't help your electability argument. Which, of course, is why you avoid these obvious truths.

Posted by DTM | March 25, 2008 12:37 PM

Yes you did, Tim.

It's gullible and naive to believe that Barack Obama is going to change the politics of the US, because he isn't.

That's not why I voted for him, nor is it why I am supporting him.

Is that what everyone in Imaginationland thinks about why people are voting for Obama?

Some people feel that way, sure. And good for them. Others are more pragmatic, however, and think his judgment is far superior to Hillary's. There are others who think he'll be the better diplomat, and there are others who are merely insulted by Clinton and her team's electoral "arguments," such that they are. And there are likely many other reasons, personal and practical - why Hillary has lost.

Not everyone is voting for him for the reasons you imagine.

But since you seem to insist it, that is probably the only reason in Imaginationland why Hillary has lost the real election, but cleaning up in the Imaginationland contest.

Your "but she beat him in swing states" argument is - well - ridiculous and "naive" and "gullible" as DTM (and many others) have demonstrated.

That you can't win over the people you accuse of being "as a gullible as a 6-year-old" doesn't speak well of your powers of persuasion - in the real world.

In Imaginationland, however, you could probably sell water to a whale.

You'll love it there, and you will be the bestest VP ever.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 12:53 PM

DTM and SoCalJustice:

Since you usually read as the same person anyways, I might as well combine the response.

You two could basically be Axelrod and Plouffe. Just as they criticize the Clinton campaign for by negative, even as they themselves practice negative campaigning, so you two are also hypocrites. You take me to task for insulting Obama supporters. How many times have both of you and many others insulted Clinton supporters? Too many times to catalogue.

You are right that winning a primary does not automatically translate into winning the general election, and everyone knows that. For the Clinton campaign it's a way of making a less harsh form of what the real argument is: Obama is going to be Swift-boated as an ultra-liberal, unAmerican, naive, irresponsible, inexperienced, unpatriotic, out-of-the-mainstream candidate with a loud-mouth wife, and radical, racist pastor ... But saying that in those terms would be too "negative."

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 4:06 PM

so you two are also hypocrites.

Tim,

You're embarrassing yourself, now.

You've demonstrated that you don't know what the words "unable" or "fathom" means. That would be a good time to stop lashing out. But since you've chosen to keep digging a deeper hole, so be it. Even a 3am phone call from Hillary begging you to stop making her campaign look bad probably would have no effect.

Having said that, your active imagination makes you the perfect candidate for the VP of Imaginationland, where even Canadians can be whatever they want to be.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 4:20 PM

SoCalJustice:

You're just an offensive individual who simply cannot stand somebody else not falling under Barack Obama's hypnotic trance. Just because you've totally lost touch with political reality doesn't mean you have to viciously claw out at everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 4:26 PM

Tim K,

Interestingly enough, I think I have a much higher opinion of Clinton's supporters than you do.

My basic theory is that Clinton's supporters mostly support her because they like her (and Bill), and I anticipate that if she loses the nomination graciously and then the Clintons campaign for Obama, most of her current supporters will vote for him in the general election. But your theory about Clinton's supporters is that they are supporting Clinton not because they like her, but rather because they have some visceral aversion to a liberal black guy, and your prediction is that in the general election they will be easily manipulated by the Republican smear machine into voting against their ideological and policy beliefs.

So, in truth it is you who are being far more insulting to Clinton's supporters than I am. Indeed, the only major thing I would note about them is that Clinton simply does not have enough supporters to win her the nomination, but that is not really an insult.

Posted by DTM | March 26, 2008 5:23 AM

"What Obama is running on isn't "real", it's bullshit. Hope? Guess what? There is no hope. That's not a strategy, it's a sentiment. He might as well be running on "Politics of Love." At least then more people would see through it. And as for "a different kind of politics", there isn't anything "new" about that slogan. "New politics"? That's a term associated with the New Politics movement of the 1950's Democratic Party of Adlai Stevenson; Arthur Schlesinger memorably termed it "dough-faced liberalism." You want the party to nominate a latter day Stevenson? That's fine, but don't be whining when the results are no better."

What he's running on is better foreign policy judgment in terms of policy. On Iraq, Iran, cluster bombs, Cuba, Israel-Palestine, etc. he has a better track record. Those are matters of public record. I think, in the end, you are just supporting Clinton because you get to feel intellectually superior for supporting the non-inspiring candidate and then inflate her resume with faux-experience to cover your intellectual shallowness. Yours isn't a well-thought out position, but a posture to show you're too cool for school. When it's so obvious, it's so sad. And you're a douche because you don't engage with people's ideas. If you really think political junkies are voting for Obama because we're 15-year-old girls in love with ideas of "hope" and "change" that will allow Obama to smooth-talk his way into touching our electoral naughty places, that's just because you're a fool who hasn't been paying attention and need to feel like the smartest person in the room, which has been W's failing (among many). Congratulations, you're this board's version of George W. Bush. Heck of a job, Timmy.

Campaigns in the end depend on the theme that strikes a visceral chord. Reagan and Bush ran on fear, which worked. Clinton's, experience, tends not to work (think of how Mondale also ran the 3 AM phone call ad). Running on hope and change tends to work. Running against DC tends to work, such as JFK, FDR, Carter, Bill "Man From Hope" Clinton, etc. The latter is why Carter, Reagan, Clinton and W all won. This attack on the idea of hope means that you are attacking the theme that allowed the Clintons to come to national power in the first place, so thus their supporters are fools.

"And as for your criticism of Hillary's performance in the primaries, by your argument the Democratic party of 1972 was correct to nominate George McGovern over Ed Muskie.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 9:33 AM"

There were three nominees who did surprisingly close in 1972 - McGovern, Muskie and, we forget, George Wallace. If you remove the names, 1 and 3 exceeded expectations. However, Wallace of course was unacceptable for obvious reasons. However, do you really think Muskie the crybaby would have won? The fact that his reaction to one of Nixon's CREEP dirty tricks - the forged "Canuck" letter - was to cry in public means that he would have been a punching bag for the Republicans. Both of them were guaranteed big losers. McGovern's base of support was very narrow and only included pretty much the party activists who did support him. Meanwhile, Obama has higher overall positives than either Clinton. McGovern was a horrible candidate for being way too far to the left, such as wanting to remove troops from Korea for no real reason, not because he ran a good ground campaign. His other big problem was over the VP implosion. In addition, he pissed off so many elite in the party many started actively working for Nixon before the convention. This time around, Clinton is pissing off many in the party, with her strategy being called the Tonya Harding strategy by one DNC insider, by praising McCain over our likely nominee, race-baiting and thus alienating our most loyal demographic and trying to rip the party up over MI and FL. Clinton thus combines many of McGovern's flaws - she is seen as too far to the left (many people put her in Pol Pot territory) despite her actual positions (meanwhile at least McGovern was off in pot field territory while Clinton can't fend of a meme that isn't true cuz she has the political skill of a blind mongoose) with pissing off the Party. Add in the crying and the race-baiting and she combines the worst of the top 3 candidates of 1972 with none of the apparent benefits of any of them.

Clinton has never been shown to run a good campaign. She wasted $30 million in her re-election campaign in a safe seat while doing nothing to raise money or donate money to Democrats in hard-fought battles. She coasted into the Senate in the first place because she was Bill Clinton's wife, not out of any political skill of her own. In her first real campaign, she started off with every single advantage a non-incumbent could have and is now losing. She was the key to Clinton losing the House in 1994. That's more on her than anyone, including Bill and Ira Magaziner. Swing-state superdelegates are supporting Obama because they want to be able to keep their seats and want coattails. I'm guessing they know something. She's also veering into territory that could risk pissing off her Latino supporters (saying Richardson's only value was as a Latino and trying to blame black economic woes on Mexican illegal immigrants) (it's also worth remembering that Bill won Florida Cubans in 1996, but then lost them for Gore in 2000 over Elia) while doing nothing to get more white support for it. She has nothing to run on against McCain. She can't run on experience, fear, hawkishness, etc. She can't draw too much distinction and paint McCain as too conservative because that will only serve to show how far to the left she is and underscore the pre-existing extreme bias against her. She can't run on judgment because they voted the same way on the war, Kyl-Lieberman, etc. The best she can do is run on some vague notion of competently pursuing the same policies McCain would enact that isn't apparent in her record, which worked so well for Dukakis. Obama can run on his abstract themes - hope and change - can suggest his stark contrasts - youth, adaptability to the 21st century and a globalizing world - and can also hit him harder on policy - Iraq, Iran, social issues (he's seen as more moderate than Clinton, so he can draw those distinctions while she can't) - and can point to real legislative accomplishments (loose nukes, avian flu, etc.) while all she can do is point to getting chump change for New York after 9/11, which is like suing Bill Gates after his limo cripples you and all you get is enough for a new bandaid. If she had actual accomplishments, experience, judgment, etc. she could point to, she wouldn't be making up shit about sniper fire to fill that gap.

Posted by Reality Man | March 26, 2008 7:48 AM

Reality Man:

Is your tantrum/diatribe over yet?

I don't think your political junkies who support Barack Obama are like love-struck 15-year-old girls, I think you are unrealistic liberals. Anybody who thinks choosing a president should come down to their opposition to cluster bombs is not within the American mainstream. The Daily Kos/Huffington Post/MoveOn.org wing of the party is all about disarming the country as much as possible, and being as nice to the country's enemies as possible, while rooting for failure in Iraq. Most Americans look at that and just shake their heads. They don't want a president like that. They want someone who's strong and is prepared to use force in a world they know is dangerous. If cluster bombs were needed to defend America, most Americans who say "Go ahead, use 'em." But many liberals give the impression that they would put American lives at risk in order to further their idealistic world-view. That's why less than 20% of Americans self-identify as liberal. It has been a word tarred by the activist Left to mean weak-kneed, woolly-headed and dough-faced.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 11:40 AM

Wow, Tim, I think I hurt your widdle feewings.

Coming from a disengenuous, lying hack such as yourself, insults are compliments.

I am sowwy about your feewings, though.

Who knew you had such a thin skin?

I guess Hillary's not the only one who's not ready on day one.

I can't stand it when people don't fall under Obama's hypnotic trance?

You are really a prize idiot, Tim. It's kind of amazing how one can be so daft.

You're the one so bothered by the fact that Hillary's losing.

I know you don't know what the words "unable" and "fathom" mean, so you have a lot of homework, but here's another word for you: "projection."

You need help, Tim.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 26, 2008 11:51 AM

SoCalJustice:

Who knew you were such jackass? Oh yeah... EVERYONE who has ever read your self-satisfied, ignorant rants that are just poor excuses for commentary. You're nothing but a Barack Obama shill.

Why don't you just go to a 'cluster bomb protest' with Reality Man and leave politics to people who have some sense of how the world actually works.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 12:16 PM

Ahh, Timmy, you're cute when you get unhinged.

Thanks for sharing your true feelings on democracy, as well.

Just so precious.

Too funny.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 26, 2008 12:20 PM

Tim K,

Sensible restrictions on the tactics and weapons we will use in civilian areas isn't a liberal versus conservative issue--indeed, it is just as much a matter of being strategically smart as it is of being moral (not that being moral is an exclusive preserve of liberals anyway).

Posted by DTM | March 26, 2008 12:24 PM

SoCalJustice:

It's my true feelings on how to run a political party. I have some degree of trust in the common sense of average people, it's just liberal elitist (or pretended liberal elitists, I don't know your situation) like yourself I'd prefer not run the show. I don't want rigid ideologues of any kind dominating the political leadership - Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly, Anne Coulter or Al Franken.

Either way I think the influence of Daily Kos/MoveOn et al will wane in the coming years. Either because Barack Obama will largely ignore them from the White House, or if their chosen candidate goes down to defeat this November, they will rightfully be blamed for pushing the party too far to the Left.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 12:28 PM

DTM:

You're right, sensible restriction on use of weapons is, of course sensible. The point I was making was that some liberals (progressives, or whatever the mot du jour is) seem much more concerned with limiting American power than keeping America safe.

A similar example: When there were signs that the so-called "surge" in Iraq was succeeding militarily the reaction of MoveOn was denial and to label General Petraeus a liar and a traitor. That gives the impression of liberal activists not wanting America to succeed in Iraq.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 12:37 PM

Pretended liberal elitists?

Tim K, I realize you are desperate - for whatever reason, but it's really starting to ooze out. And the results are not pretty.

Obama has more votes and more delegates. Hillary cannot catch up. He is winning and has an insurmountable lead. It is not "elites," pretended, liberal or otherwise, who put him there. It is the majority of the voters.

The only remote chance she has is to pull a "Tonya Harding" - which she has been trying - and hope that a couple hundred "liberal elites" overturn the will of the majority.

Rest assured, I do not run the show. So you needn't worry about that. Nor am I on aligned with Daily Kos or MoveOn. I do, however, think this has been a case where they go it right - instead of jumping to Hillary after Edwards dropped out. And I don't think anyone needs to worry about either of those groups taking over the party, no matter who is elected. Besides, both organizations are diverse and fight amongst themselves on many issues.

If, as you claim, one of your main concerns is electability, this Tuzla lying has just demolished Hillary's chances of posing as a national security candidate - whatever benefit she may have gotten from her Iraq stance (and that is subjective to begin with) has evaporated.

If you really want to beat McCain, there is only one choice.

However, if your goal - as it seems - is just to have Obama lose, well, best of luck to you.

Your arguments have not won over anyone so far. But I am not going to ask you to stop trying, or "leave this to the adults." Do whatever you want. So far, you've done Hillary very few favors.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 26, 2008 12:43 PM

SoCalJustice:

It is not "elites," pretended, liberal or otherwise, who put him there.

Of course that's who put him there. Every step of the way Obama's rise and success in these primaries has been owed to liberal or left-wing support. Whether it was the early support the "netroots", affluent liberal voters and liberals in the media... the endorsement of liberal icon Ted Kennedy (and his niece Caroline), and liberal senators like Leahy, and former senator Bill Bradley... the tacit support of liberal (and someone I otherwise like) Speaker Pelosi... the well-timed endorsement of MoveOn.org before Super Tuesday, and the list goes on. Without this support there is no way Obama would have been in a position to be as successful as he has been.

Daily Kos and MoveOn are an extremist element with the party, radicalizing the base and pushing Democratic candidates too far to the Left. While they may disagree on many individual issues, I think their general philosophies are quite in sync with one another.

The Tuzla issue reminds me of Al Gore and him being labeled a "serial exaggerator" for things they never really said or meant to say. I doubt you thought Al Gore's misstatements were all that important before, but now that it is a Clinton who did it it's so important and relevant.

If you really want to beat McCain, there is only one choice.

Do you even know the difference between fact and opinion? There is no evidence that statement of yours is true. Both candidates' campaigns seem intent on destroying the electability of the other at this point, and it's not at all clear from the polling who is more likely to beat McCain. The polling at this moment points to Clinton, but as we all know, it's dynamic. Of course I think Clinton is more electable and you think it's Obama, but there's no conclusive proof on either side of this particular argument.

As for doing people favors, people like yourself have succeeded in turning off so many Clinton supporters that 28% (in today's Gallup survey) would rather vote for McCain than for Obama. More than the 19% of Obama supporters who would make the same choice.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 1:15 PM

I'd like to add to Tim K's comments by pointing out that Obama's support comes from Republicans. I prefer to support real Democrats.

___

The party of Marty Peretz and General Electric, or the party of true Democrats? Matthew's made his choice and I've made mine.

Posted by Peatey | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM

Do you even know the difference between fact and opinion?

Tim, coming from someone who doesn't know the meaning of "unable" or "fathom," you're not really in the best position to be asking people if they know the meaning of words.

That ship has sailed. Along with Hillary's. Although her's was more of a corkscrew landing in Tuzla, and yours was more of a garbage barge along the St. Lawrence.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 26, 2008 1:36 PM

SoCalJustice:

If only you excelled at political analysis as much as you excell at childish taunts and name-calling.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM

SoCalJustice:

If only you excelled at political analysis as much as you excell at childish taunts and name-calling.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 1:47 PM

SoCalJustice:

If only you excelled at political analysis as much as you excell at childish taunts and name-calling.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 1:50 PM

"SoCalJustice:

If only you excelled at political analysis as much as you excell at childish taunts and name-calling.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 1:50 PM"

The lack of self-awareness here is just laughable. At this point you're stuck with strawmen dirty fucking hippies to knock down. We aren't rooting for failure in Iraq, but realize we've just been treading water there. Iraq is draining our blood and treasure and making us less powerful. Cluster bombs aren't necessary to destroy America and often make things more difficult in the long run. I don't read Kos and I'm not active in MoveOn, so you're just talking out of your ass. You've become completely unhinged. You've failed to engage with just about any idea someone has here. For someone who claims to know a lot about politics, you don't seem to know a lot about anything. It's not my fault Clinton lacks foreign policy judgment (unless you think it's good that Iraq could turn out to do to our hegemony what Afghanistan did for Soviet power) and that's she's running on nothing. You've got nothing but insults and strawmen left and it shows.

Also, Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. Clinton claimed to have been under sniper fire at Tuzla and that the welcome ceremony was canceled. Gore was smeared in the former, so the "serial exaggerator" label was a smear. Clinton was caught in a lie on camera that she told repeatedly to puff up her foreign policy experience. That makes her a liar. No one made her repeatedly talk about Tuzla. That is her own fault and she should take some responsibility for it.

You can complain about people being mean to you, but it only happens because you deserve it and bring it on yourself. This stuff probably happens in real life to you and you never understand why. You sound like a pain to be around socially. If you don't know why nobody likes you, then you're just sad.