home

Clintons, Obama Head Back to North Carolina Monday

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:15:00 PM EST
Tags: North Carolina '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A tv reporter tonight said Hillary Clinton is heading back to North Carolina tonight. Bill Clinton will make 11 stops there tomorrow and Hillary will make 2. (Here's how hard Bill's been working --3,500 came out to see him in Morganton today.)

The Obamas will also be in North Carolina, campaigning in Durham and Fayetteville.

What does it mean that both candidates are spending the day before the NC and IN primaries in NC?

There are 72 pledged delegates at stake in Indiana and 115 in North Carolina. Indiana hasn't voted for a Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. North Carolina voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 (by 13% and 12%). Even native son John Edwards on the ticket didn't matter. Since 1964, the Democratic Presidential ticket has carried N.C. only for Carter-Mondale in 1976..

Here are the latest voter stats, as of May 3, for North Carolina. As for Indiana, the New York Times explains it's very complicated. Maybe that's why the polls are so divergent.

Update: Comments now closed, new thread is here.

< NC: Lessons From VA, SC and GA? | Obama Tells Workers, When They Lose Their Job, They Lose Their Dignity >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clintons, Obama Head Back to North Carolina Monday | 238 comments (238 topical)
    Sounds like both candidates. . . (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:09:44 PM EST
    think North Carolina is more in play than Indiana.  A reading of the polls would indicate that if that's true, they probably think Indiana is in the bag for Clinton while North Carolina presents the possibility of a notable outcome -- the most notable possibility being a Clinton win.

    PS. (4.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:10:03 PM EST
    Which I think is extraordinarily unlikely.

    Parent
    Carville called it this morning (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:01:08 PM EST
    ala Babe Ruth pointing to the bleachers: she'll win IN and NC.

    Now, Carville can spin a tale like any other good ol' southern boy, but he wouldn't make such a statement unless he thought it was a definite possibility.

    Parent

    Carville ow the KUSA pundit. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:05:38 PM EST
    Oh...yes!!!!!

    Parent
    Carville's standard answer. . . (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:08:59 PM EST
    when he's asked if he's ever thought about running for office is "No (three beats) -- I inhaled".  I hope he's not at it again.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd be very happy to see Clinton win North Carolina.  I would just advise people not to nurture unrealistic expectations.

    Parent

    I haven't seen that quote from Carville (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:17:53 PM EST
    last time I saw him was on LK two weeks ago when he was saying "I agree with Sen. Obama, IN is the tie-breaker." Is it possible that he was responding to a question -- as in "What happens if she wins both IN & NC?" and not making a prediction?

    Parent
    Kathy... (none / 0) (#66)
    by lansing quaker on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:10:56 PM EST
    Is there a video or link for this yet?  I like hearing Carville, but can never find any clips online (Richardson excepted).

    Thanks!


    Parent

    There might be a recent (none / 0) (#150)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:17:48 PM EST
    interview with him, his wife, and two other strategists on MTP's site.

    Carville is always entertaining, but he's best when his wife is with him.

    Parent

    PPS (none / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:11:12 PM EST
    Which indicates the existence of substantial momentum in Clinton's direction -- Clinton has never polled ahead in North Carolina while even a couple of weeks ago there were polls favorable to each candidate in Indiana.

    Parent
    I agree with your analysis (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:18:10 PM EST
    Though I would suggest that Hillary is trying to avoid being blown out in NC. The early black voting figures that I've heard make it impossible for her to win (38%).

    Parent
    For whatever reason... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by OrangeFur on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    ... Obama also led by a wide margin in Texas' early voting. I remember on election night he led by a large margin early on, and Hillary gradually overtook him. I just verified this by checking a few big Texas counties and noting that Obama did much better with the early votes than in final totals; the gap frequently shrank by over 10 points.

    I'm not sure why that would be, but I'm not excessively concerned about the early voting numbers yet. If the pattern holds up on Tuesday, that's a different story.

    Having said all that, I don't expect Clinton to win NC on Tuesday. The Clinton camp is making optimistic noises, which is unlike them, but the demographics are pretty tough.

    Eleven stops for Bill! My goodness--he just loves this stuff, doesn't he?

    Parent

    Hillary Has Pretty Consistently Gotten The (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:06:32 PM EST
    late deciders (i.e people who decided day of vote).

    Parent
    I think it's more than that... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by OrangeFur on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:56:10 PM EST
    For whatever reason, even the people who have committed to her don't vote until election day.

    Parent
    Well, speaking only for me, as we say (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Cream City on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:52:44 PM EST
    it wouldn't have been enough this time to just lick a stamp and walk to the mailbox.

    This time, my daughter and I managed to mesh schedules sufficiently to walk together into our polling place.  We decided that it was a mother-daughter moment not to be missed.  (Months later, she still talks about it. . . .)

    Maybe it is that sort of historic campaign for lots of people -- after all, about two thirds of the population never has had a candidate of their race and/or gender in American history.  (Unless, of course, more evidence emerges on Warren Harding.:-)

    Parent

    I haven't voted yet (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:34:03 AM EST
    I'm in NC, and I'm going to the polls on Tuesday morning like I've done for the last 30 years.  To me, voting is a communal activity.  Going early just doesn't seem the same.

    Parent
    I voted early in NC (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by angie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:40:58 AM EST
    first time voting early ever -- and you are right -- I wish I had waited for Tuesday -- it wasn't the same, and I will not do it again (even though there was no line, I was in and out in about 5 minutes, etc). I just feel like I haven't really voted.

    Parent
    As I say. . . (4.66 / 3) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:25:07 PM EST
    I think it's pretty darn unlikely.  I'm sure they're going for the best possible outcome, but at this point the argument "Sure she lost by 7, but she was supposed to lose by 14" is only going to sway true-believers.

    She needs something big -- a North Carolina win or Obama delegate defections -- to capitalize on her recent momentum.

    Parent

    Indiana is the tie breaker (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:34:51 PM EST
    goal posts shouldn't move so easily.  Besides the "lost by" argument was played for quite some time by the Obama campaign.

    If she losed NC, just go right on to Oregon and push like hell to make sure FL/MI are seated.


    Parent

    It's not, though. (3.00 / 1) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:38:43 PM EST
    I mean, it's nice to play "gotcha" if Obama actually said that, but the fact is that he's ahead and if he wins NC and places close in Indiana (even not so close) he'll be further ahead after Tuesday in both delegates and popular vote.

    Parent
    whaddya mean IF? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:44:47 PM EST
    Of course he said it

    and of course he was asked about that this morning on MTP and Tim let him dance around his stupid statement...I'm sure there's a transcript of MTP on msnbc's web site but you'll have to fish that one out yourself (or watch the podcast).

    Parent

    No worries. . . (3.00 / 1) (#36)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:49:49 PM EST
    I just didn't hear it myself, and have only heard it reported on blogs.  But it doesn't matter.  No one's going to call on him to drop out just because he goofed up and suggested that Indiana was the tie breaker, at least, not if he wins (net delegates and popular vote) on Tuesday.

    Parent
    keep tryin' (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by moll on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:36:48 PM EST
    No one's going to call on him to drop out just because he goofed up

    He sure 'goofs up' a lot when he talks.

    Parent

    Goofing up when you talk. . . (3.00 / 1) (#106)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:38:25 PM EST
    is demonstrably not disqualifying for the office of President (although perhaps folks are a bit more skeptical these days).

    Parent
    He said.... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:00:26 PM EST
    This  

    at Meet the Press.  I've linked you to page 5 where he talks about Hillary having to drop out or the primaries come to an end to be the final determining of his candidacy. He's not afraid to say that he believes the supers will give him the nod.

    The first 4 pages are just his ramblings against Hillary's policies and statements on Iran, tax holiday, etc. Not much substance, and it is better to watch it...the speed of his stuttering is often indicative of his knowledge level.

    It's nowhere near as informative if you don't go to the ABC This Week site and watch the available clips of what Hillary said herself about her own policies.  The comparison is startling.  He doesn't even come close to representing her plan accurately.

    Parent

    Intially (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:45:05 PM EST
    that may be right but if he has demographic problems yet again and it's close with high AA turnout it's not really that great news for Obama.

    I'm not trying to spin here but if he loses the white vote by margins of 2 to 1 it plays right into the media narrative that he can't win the general election.

    Of course, I also think that the media narrative is something to be fought and not to be dependent on. It's one of the problems I have with the Obama campaign. Being dependent on a fickle media is a terrible thing.

    Parent

    Yeah. . . (3.00 / 1) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:51:50 PM EST
    if he loses the white vote by margins of 2 to 1 it plays right into the media narrative that he can't win the general election.

    If he wins on Tuesday while losing 66% of the white vote then it does play into that media narrative -- but he'll still be the nominee.

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:53:33 PM EST
    we're knowingly going to nominate a loser then I guess. Besides, I thought Oregon was the new firewall for Obama to prove that he could win the white vote.

    Parent
    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:55:01 PM EST
    It's not just a narrative.

    Or rather the denouement of that narrative is Obama calling McCain to congratulate him on his victory.


    Parent

    I don't agree (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:56:37 PM EST
    If he loses big on the white vote (which means a close race), loses IN, and then loses OR then I think he is toast.

    Parent
    I Love Me Some Toast....Evan Bayh On Face (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:33:15 PM EST
    the nation is feeling good about Hillary's chances.  Clyburn sure changed his tone today, trying to say he didn't say Hillary was trying to ruin obama's chances at winning, but was passing along what they are saying on the campuses...whatta putz.

    Parent
    Y'all keep saying he'll be the nominee (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:05:10 PM EST
    but logic it out here: if he's the nominee no matter what happens in these elections, then why hasn't the delegate shift occurred to hand him the nomination?

    They are waiting for something to happen.  It hasn't happened yet or we wouldn't be having this conversation.  These next primaries are extremely important-probably more so than any of us can imagine.

    Parent

    I completely agree with this, Kathy - (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Anne on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:19:01 PM EST
    if the SD's truly thought Obama was The One, that he could handily beat McCain, the nomination would have been wrapped up weeks ago.

    There isn't even a credible argument that it's just the SD's in states that have not voted yet - I know in my own state, one of my senators is still uncommitted; we voted Feb 12th, and the state went for Obama.  He easily could have committed to Obama using the "will of the people" argument, but he hasn't.

    So, like you, I believe that they are waiting, and if Clinton keeps winning, and/or exceeding expectations, and the trend lines continue to move in her favor, I think we will soon see the existing uncommitted SD's committing to her and some movement to her from some who had prevously committed to Obama.

    Parent

    Waiting? As long as it isn't Godot (none / 0) (#86)
    by Lahdee on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:23:06 PM EST
    wearing his electability cape or the populars to clear the fog.
    If Dr. Dean has his way the waiting will end in June, Obama'd like an end on Tuesday and Hillary'd like to be viable into the summer.
    What's that about waiting till the last moment to make a decision?

    Parent
    Logic? (none / 0) (#87)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:23:44 PM EST
    There doesn't seem to be any logic behind the "he's losing but will still be the nominee" argument.  Unless of course, they plan on losing in November.  Duh.


    Parent
    A scenario (none / 0) (#116)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:48:04 PM EST
    is they are waiting for a decent win.  They may have to wait until the end with Montana and South Dakota where he will win and then endorse and try to get as much media attention and try to end him on as positive a note as possible (he's going to need it.)

    Parent
    MT and SD (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:56:10 PM EST
    do not a decent win make.

    My guess is they were waiting for the press to unleash on him.  It has--a bit--and he has not managed it well.

    Something is going on with him.  He looks defeated.  He wouldn't be acting all hangdog if he knew that he had this wrapped up.

    Parent

    b-b-but... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:14:24 PM EST
    It's all he has.  

    I almost feel bad for him, his narrative is terrible.  Say he gets NC.. so what, Clinton gets IN. Next week is W Va, and he isn't going to look good after that.  The next week he may get OR, so what, Clinton's going to do much better in Kentucky.  Then comes PR.  Not looking too good.

    The only thing he has is SD and MT and if doesn't do his projected 15 and 11, he's looking bad.

    The party is so pathetic, unless Clinton wins something unusual, they are going to push him over the finish line.  It isn't going to be pretty when/if they do.

    He has reason to look defeated. It's a sad story line.

    Parent

    I've been saying this since PA. (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:24:43 AM EST
    no offense but he sounds like a blubbering candidate. Nice appearance, haircut, Armani suit, but not ready to serve.

    Parent
    If (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by sas on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:13:24 PM EST
    he's still the nominee after losing the white vote by 2 to 1, then the Democrats are dumber than I thought they were.....let's not offend the blacks or the young...but let's lose in the GE....DUMB

    Parent
    Sadly. . . (4.50 / 2) (#78)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:19:02 PM EST
    for your outlook, at least, we have a democratic process to select the nominee.  And that process in some ways runs contrary to producing the best general election candidate.

    It's not easy to define "most electable" (obviously supporters of each candidate are completely convinced that their candidate is more electable), but primaries aren't really the best way to do it.

    BTD feels that Obama is the most electable for considerations completely distinct from the capabilities of the candidates themselves.  Personally, I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether Clinton or Obama is more electable in November.

    Parent

    actually, we don't have a democratic process (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by sancho on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:32:49 PM EST
    if by that you mean one person, one vote. we have a very rigged process (thanks george mcgovern!) that has not given us strong nominees since '72. in this election, obama's reliance on caucus victories is decidedly anti-democratic b/c by definition caucuses exclude many eligible voters (the elderly, the chronically employed, many single-parents) from voting. and then there is the throw out two states strategy. that's really democratic too.

    Parent
    it's not really that hard to see (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by moll on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:41:55 PM EST
    Personally, I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether Clinton or Obama is more electable in November.

    It seems to me pretty obvious who is more electable.

    I have only heard one argument suggesting that Obama has an edge - and that is based on him being the 'media darling'. But I don't see how that will help him when he's up against the Republicans. After they start advertising it won't matter whether MSNBC likes him or not.

    Every other argument I have yet heard for Obama is based on some variant of entitlement. AAs are entitled to a President. Obama is entitled because he has more delegates. Etc.

    When was the last time there was such a massive campaign to make the candidate's obvious weaknesses into "the voters' fault"?...oh wait, wasn't that Kerry?

    Parent

    he'll be the nominee when he gets the nomination (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by moll on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:39:02 PM EST
    ...and so far he hasn't.

    Ultimately it comes down to superdelegates.

    Sorry, but he lost his chance to win by pledged delegate lead. He didn't earn enough. Now the rules kick it to the superdelegates, and pledged delegate lead is just factor to take into consideration - and if it were the most important one, the superdelegates would have all come out for him by now. But they haven't.

    Parent

    The media isn't fickle (none / 0) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:22:10 PM EST
    they just hate being wrong, so they change their position/prediction ahead of the outcome so they can fall back on having "called it" correctly. That's especially effective when they call it both ways.

    Parent
    He did actually say that (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:46:00 PM EST
    but substantively, you're right.

    Hillary needs to survive to KY and WV.

    Parent

    True but don't ignore (none / 0) (#34)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:46:08 PM EST
    that if FL/MI are seated, that vast delegate lead goes down to about 14.

    For the rest, I suggest waiting until the votes are counted before giving him a larger lead.


    Parent

    But What If Edwards Releases His Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:34:42 PM EST
    and they go for Hillary?  That would be a game changer also.

    Parent
    What states is he holding delegates? (none / 0) (#105)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:37:59 PM EST
    He didn't have many, did he?  I thought Iowa already caucused some of his off to Obama.

    Wouldn't each state have their own rules on how to handle those?  

    Parent

    Java....I Believe Edward Had About 100 (none / 0) (#128)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:56:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Spread across all the Super Tuesday states? (none / 0) (#155)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:24:00 PM EST
    He doesn't have a say in who they go to, though, does he?

    Parent
    Edwards can ask his pledged delegates (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by eleanora on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:15:08 AM EST
    to support another candidate, and they'll probably do it for one ballot anyway, since they're liable to be strong Edwards supporters to have held out this long. But he's only got 19 delegates left after the Iowa defections, 33 if you count FL. So him releasing them to either Clinton or Obama would be a help, not a gamechanger.

    Parent
    my own PS (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:20:17 PM EST
    Clinton is clearly polling head in IN. Her campaign would otherwise not risk needling the Obama people about the spreadsheet.

    Parent
    Sounds like Obama campaign campaign (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by athyrio on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:13:35 PM EST
    deciding they can afford a loss in Indiana but not a loss in NC....HMMMMM.I thought Obama called Indiana the tie braker.....

    spin...counter spin... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:16:02 PM EST
    and up is in the other direction from where we originally thought it was.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#96)
    by Makarov on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:33:21 PM EST
    it may be more "we've done what we can in IN", but we need to meet expectations in NC.  What are the NC expectations?  I think he should win by 15%, since it looks like African Americans are over 1/3 of registered dems.  Given recent polls, the media will probably give him a 10% threshold.  If he only wins NC by say, 5%, and Clinton wins IN by 10%, the story "Obama can't win non-AA working class" will be cemented.

    I don't think the movement by the Obama campaign means they're afraid of actually losing the state.  I think they're not comfortable with their margin.

    That said, I still give Hillary a small chance to pull it out.  They're smart to be working hard in NC.  A 5% smaller margin of victory in NC for Obama is more important than a 5% greater margin for Hillary in IN.  My predictions:

    Obama wins NC by 10% or more (simply because he outperformed polls in similar states like VA and MD)
    Hillary wins IN by 10%

    Media narrative in this case - "nothing has changed, except Obama only needs 'x' delegates to sew this up".  They've adopted the Obama campaign's tactic of pretending MI and FL don't exist.  May 31, when the RBC committee meets about them, is the most important day for both campaigns this month (unless Hillary pulls out a miraculous win in NC, in which case she'll be the nominee).

    If Obama wins by less than 10%, I think it's a clear sign that OH and PA are not unique in their view of his candidacy.

    Parent

    I got the distinct impression... (none / 0) (#117)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:48:46 PM EST
    that NC has gotten really really tight and that is why they are all closing there tomorrow and why Carville is actually talking about NC.

    I do believe that the SUSA poll that showed Obama getting only 30% of the white votes in NC is proving to be pretty accurate and that indicates that Obama has a huge problem...even if he does squeak out a victory.

    Parent

    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#168)
    by Makarov on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:35:37 PM EST
    I just see 70-30 white vote split as very difficult.  She did get it in Mississippi.  I'm just guessing NC will be more like 65-35.  Obama won whites in VA, even though that was a month before the Miss. vote.

    Parent
    He did before he didn't (none / 0) (#147)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:13:34 PM EST
    He denied it to Tim Russert this morning.

    Parent
    Uh, she won Texas. (none / 0) (#202)
    by tigercourse on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:08:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Clinton won Texas by 100 K n/t (none / 0) (#209)
    by eleanora on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:19:49 AM EST


    Parent
    TX State Convention June 4th (none / 0) (#226)
    by eleanora on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:43:03 AM EST
    See you then :)

    Parent
    How many days has NC already been voting? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:17:26 PM EST
    Isn't NC Newt Gingrich country? He said on The View last week that he believes Hillary will get the nomination.

    John Edwards should stay quiet for now. Elizabeth can speak, though.  

    Why did Newt Gingrich believe that? (none / 0) (#114)
    by bridget on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:43:49 PM EST
    Sounds too good - just wish it will be so.

    I did hear him say after the O'Reilly/Hillary interview that all bets are off if Hillary wins NC.

    (weird for me to ask about Gingrich all of a sudden - pretty much ignored him since the 90s).

    Parent

    Maybe the sort of story like the one (none / 0) (#180)
    by Cream City on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:48:12 PM EST
    on the link from BTD to what's up in Morganton has been happening all along, whenever a Clinton hits a small town that has been ignored for too long -- and turns out 3,500 from every nearby hamlet, too.

    Wow.  What a terrific story to read, so many great quotes from folks of all ages.  Thanks for the link, BTD.

    Parent

    This is when superstition (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:17:44 PM EST
     takes hold.  Now we all must do what we have done in the past for the wins.  C'mon, no slipping.

    I'm constantly in awe (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:20:25 PM EST
    over the non-stop energy the Clinton's have. Their commitment to this country is so inspiring.

    Well you see, (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:30:23 PM EST
    the Clintons actually like meeting the people, listening to their concerns and talking to them -- yes, they are pols, and they want their votes, but they actually do care about helping these people -- unlike other pols, who only care about getting the votes and who are "bored" with the whole campaigning/having to talk to people thing.

    Parent
    Yep, The Clinton's Are People People! (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:39:08 PM EST


    Parent
    NY Times Poll (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by diogenes on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:07:31 PM EST
    Current NY Times poll of Past/future dem primary voters has Obama ahead 50-38.  Popular vote, anyone?

    We (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:08:42 PM EST
    already discussed this bogus poll on another thread.

    Parent
    This is a stupid poll..... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sas on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:22:06 PM EST
    check out the description by BTD

    Parent
    Could Pres. Clinton's visit to (none / 0) (#4)
    by katiebird on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:12:54 PM EST
    the small towns have an effect?  He's been tireless.

    Did you hear the NPR (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:19:38 PM EST
    story on that?  The creepy boy reporter man, he spun it to make it seem so horrible.  That Bill was just pumping his legacy and telling people how great he was.  NPR is just as bad.  

    Parent
    By the time this primary is over (5.00 / 9) (#55)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:05:06 PM EST
    nobody will be getting any of my money.  I already revoked my monthly pledge $ to NPR (which I've been supporting loyally for the last 15 years), told Dr. Dean to go ___ himself when he emailed me for a donation & canceled my subscription to The New Yorker.  If I find out the World Wildlife Fund, the Susan B. Komen Breast Cancer foundation and/or the SPCA endorsed Obama I'll stop my donations to them too.

    Parent
    I stopped (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by sas on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:16:20 PM EST
    giving money too....and am really ticked at my PA Dem congressman (soon to be a one termer) for endorsing Obama when my county went for Hillary by 63-37.

    He says he's not worried, but he should be....he won by only 1600 votes....

    Parent

    Considering the (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:20:30 PM EST
    fact that the candidate in LA eked out a win over a five time loser with corrupt business dealings he should be worried. Do any of these people listen to their constituents?

    Parent
    You are a great example (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:30:02 PM EST
    of how to achieve change! No wonder you support Hillary. Action is so much more impacting than simply talking about it.

    I cancelled my cable TV 3 months ago in protest of the lousy media, cut off the DNC and told them so multiple times that they won't see another dime until they fairly handle FL & MI, and the money they would have gotten goes to Hillary.

    I also don't follow links to HuffPo, or DKos.

    Parent

    NPR (none / 0) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:22:39 PM EST
    Robert Smith
    Most of Clinton's speech was made up of serious policy arguments about Hillary Clinton's agenda. But on every topic, he couldn't quite help slipping in a plug for the good old days of his own administration.


    Parent
    They should be (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MichaelGale on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:28:05 PM EST
    down on the knees praying for another administration like his.

    Also, NPR is a public channel so why are they being so opinionated. Don't tax dollars and contributions pay for NPR?

    Sounds like Michael Powell is still there.

    Parent

    Oi. (none / 0) (#21)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:34:01 PM EST
    First off, almost no tax dollars pay for NPR -- as you'd know by listening to any of their pledge drivers.  They're mostly supported by listener contributions and private foundations.

    Michael Powell was at the FCC, not CPB.

    And that report was hardly "opinionated".  If Clinton talked about his administration then reporting that fact is generally referred to as "journalism".

    Parent

    Listen to the "tone" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:38:14 PM EST
    One thing I learned this election cycle, "tone" is important in helping one make an opinion.  

    Parent
    Please do not answer (none / 0) (#45)
    by MichaelGale on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:56:19 PM EST
    or correct my posts with a childish "0i" or by being rude.

    "But on every topic, he couldn't quite help slipping in a plug for...." is not journalism buddy.  It's a snipe and opinion.

    Now you can correct me but do not post to me in that tone again.

    Parent

    Now, now. . . (none / 0) (#89)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:25:06 PM EST
    I was correcting you -- your comment contained incorrect information about NPR's funding and Michael Powell's role in government -- information sufficiently incorrect to make me believe you don't follow the issue of public broadcasting closely.

    When you say "But on every topic, he couldn't quite help. . ." isn't journalism, you're right.  But that's a quote from the commenter, not from the reporter.  If you take the editorial tone out of the comment you're left with the fact that the reporter stated that Clinton injected many comments about his own Administration.  If that's an accurate description of the speeches he gave it constitutes reportage.

    I'm sorry you don't like the Britishism "Oi", I'll attempt to remember not to use it in your presence.

    Parent

    Having heard a "Bill" speech in OR, (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by seeker on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:45:30 PM EST
    I do not remember him referring to his administration.  I may have missed it.  He did talk some about his foundation's activities, but only as a means of making a point about the things he is involved in.

    Parent
    he loves to talk to people. It envigorates him (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:32:12 AM EST
    He's such a natural people person. I read that after a rally, and before he went to his hotel room, he talked and talked to some people attending a whippitt convention. Now I've never knew what a whippit was, but they said he almost didn't want to leave late into the night.

    Parent
    And I bet that if he didn't know (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:43:23 AM EST
    what a whippet was going in, he was a walking encyclopedia on whippets by the end.  I have read that he is just voracious for information and finds just about everything anyone has to say fascinating.

    After all, he has to keep up in conversation with his wife, and we've seen again and again this season how wonky she is. :-)

    Parent

    Whippet as in dogs? (none / 0) (#232)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:48:56 AM EST


    Parent
    yup. (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:51:32 AM EST


    Parent
    Duh, Roger. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Marco21 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:00:33 PM EST
    We're all hoping another Clinton can bring us back to what life is like under a Clinton administration.

    Takes a Clinton to clean up the mess left by a Bush, after all.

    Parent

    That is for sure. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by bridget on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:04:11 PM EST
    Eight more years.

    Bill rocks!!!

    btw. Pres Bill Clinton is also making history while he gives it his all to help Hillary take the White House. He is the first one ever travelling down that road together w. Hillary and he is doing a great job.

    I have also been v. impressed with Chelsea. Saw a clip - she was addressing students and she answered questions without notes in great detail and calmly and patiently. Looked great too.  I still remember when she was 11 yrs old in 1992.

    Parent

    Can you imagine (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:35:24 PM EST
    being the only child of two such incredible over-achievers? Talk about overwhelming. Chelsea could end up being the daughter of two US Presidents. How awesome is that?!?!

    Parent
    NPR Was Pretty Bad In 2004 Too (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:25:47 PM EST
    Extremely biased against Dean and pro Kerry. They did give Edwards some decent coverage but not like Kerry.

    Immediately after it was obvious that Kerry was the nominee, they decided all of a sudden they needed to do a little more vetting.

    Stopped contributing to them because of it.

    Parent

    I heard it and was shocked (none / 0) (#42)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:54:10 PM EST
    It really was a bad piece. Every positive comment was followed by some snarky unprofessional comment by the reporter. It was truly horrible, I was surprised they let it on the air. And it was supposed to be a fluff piece.

    Parent
    Check out Time's (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:12:41 PM EST
    reader letters this week re: the love-lick Obama got over his relationship with his mother a few issues ago.  Lots of angry folks there.  "Give up the charade and change your name to 'Obama Weekly'." ; "Time's pro-Obama slant is so transparent..."  One even pointed out: "[the statement that] Ann Soetoro 'decided not to follow' Obama's father back to Kenya neatly overlooks the fact that he was returning to Kenya...with an American wife whom he had married in Massachusetts, after he left Ann and Barack in Hawaii."

    It seems that readers and listeners are doing a better job of vetting the candidate than the news sources are.  To see NPR fall into this abyss is like watching a friend decline into addiction.

    Parent

    And, the small towns LOVE him (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:36:11 PM EST


    Parent
    hell, i love him too. (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by kangeroo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:34:33 PM EST
    it's hard not to if you're a loyal rank-and-file dem.  he's a hero to me, and i have an enormous amount of affection in my heart for him.  

    i invariably find that his harshest critics contribute far, far less (if anything) good to the dem party, our country, and the world than he does--but that doesn't stop them from denouncing him, does it?  must be awfully convenient from where they sit...  

    Parent

    THEY ARE LOVING BILL CLINTON and (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:36:32 PM EST
    don't let anyone tell you differently.  I still contend that some of the AA's might break for Hillary.  I cannot believe so many of them will vote for obama just because he is black, kinda sorta.

    Parent
    USA Today online says- (none / 0) (#14)
    by kenosharick on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:24:04 PM EST
    that both are working hard in Indiana because "polls show a dead heat" they never say which polls, mind you. And here I thought polls showed Hillary in the lead.

    if NC his 115 delegates (none / 0) (#15)
    by MichaelGale on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:24:21 PM EST
    and Clinton comes in, say 5 less, how many delegates does she get?

    And same with Obama...at tight race where he loses by 5?

    Also the question about same towns:  If there is a hugh turnout in the small towns, is it possible to win with some votes from the larger cities?

    Dem delegates (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Makarov on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:14:09 PM EST
    are apportioned two ways:

    1. 2/3 by Congressional district.  Some districts may have only 3 delegates, and some may have many more, up to about nine.  The odd number delegate districts are more important because they give a winner an extra delegate.  In a district with 6 delegates, you need something over 60% (think it's about 67% actually) of the popular to gain a 4-2 split.  Win 58-42 and you could take home the same delegate count as the loser.

    2. 1/3 by statewide popular vote.

    You really have to know how congressional districts are drawn in the state, and the general demography, to predict how candidates will do on the delegate count.

    Because of this somewhat novel method of apportionment, you can win the popular vote by 5%, and come out even or even lose in delegates.  Conversely, you could win by 5% and come out 15 delegates ahead.  It comes down to the congressional districts.

    Parent

    Uh oh (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:32:26 PM EST
    to Obama campaigning in Durham. This tells me that he needs to jack up the vote in this area to win. Mabye SUSA was right and he's losing votes in the triangle area.

    What Are The Demographics In Fayetteville? n/t (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:35:48 PM EST


    Parent
    It's (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:38:52 PM EST
    the home of Ft. Bragg. There's also lots of minorities there. Perhaps the AA turnout isn't going to be as strong as he thought. I can't imagine him getting the military vote though.

    Parent
    I would think (none / 0) (#171)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:40:58 PM EST
    the military like Hillary's firm commitment to getting them out of Iraq with complete honor in having accomplished everything they were asked to do. I don't hear Obama giving the military such honest accolades when he talks about bringing them home. Certainly, the families here waiting for their return must be more certain of her commitment.

    Parent
    fox had some guy named 'Major' (none / 0) (#20)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    who gave a rather insightful analysis on the NC campaign...

    He said that Obama's poll numbers seemed to lock at about 50% which from past history, suggests that he's not likely to get more than 51 or 52% and thus it's likely to be under 5% in NC and perhaps even closer.

    I got the impression that Obama's campaign is a bit panicked and is trying to maximize NC and hold on to whatever they can and that Indiana is already lost and it's only the margin.

    So both candidates are now all-in for NC and it's apparently going to be extremely close...a lot closer than anyone has been expecting

    His name is (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:50:27 PM EST
    Major Garrett.  He's one that says he has seen Obama's superdee list and that's why he wasn't surprised about Andrew.  and I know all of this because??.... I watch Fox. That's right!  I watch Fox!  Ha! Ha!

    Parent
    Superdee list for Obama (none / 0) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:52:56 PM EST
    is probably fairly close to the same people on the donations list from his Hope PAC. I almost want to see him get the nominaton just so we can find out how many of them were promised the VP position.

    Parent
    yep (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by bigbay on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:43:20 PM EST
    He hasn't cracked 50 % in NC in quite a while.

    I think most undecideds are actually Hillary voters, who don't want to go against Obama out loud.  Being accused of racism isn't too fun, which is continually implied of public Hillary supporters. Why deal with it ?, a good number of people are thinking , is my guess.

    I predict a 52-48 Obama in N.C...Hillary by 10 in Indiana

    Parent

    Obama tends to outperform his number (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:34:49 PM EST
    in the south.

    In Indiana, his best number will probably be as good as it gets.

    Parent

    In the (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:37:33 PM EST
    past that is true. Don't bet on it happening in NC. The AA numbers in NC aren't as high as they are in places like GA.

    Parent
    The one comparable example (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:44:11 PM EST
    that Hillary won is Tennessee. But there's more of Appalachia in TN.

    Parent
    There (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:49:30 PM EST
    might be more of appalachia but there's tons of NC that's not Obama country. There's the entire state outside the triangle that Obama will probably lose by about 40 pts. Also he's losing the suburbs I hear. I'm not saying that he won't win the state but it really is more like TN than like GA.

    Parent
    I think NC looks a lot like (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:55:40 PM EST
    GA circa 1995. That is to say, there are still a lot of white people who identify as Democrats, and many of them aren't latte liberals.

    HIllary could make it close or even win if this works like an old fashioned southern election and the vote is dictated exclusively by race. If people vote in NC like they did in MS, it's a single-digit race.

    Bad for the party, good for Hillary.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:02:27 PM EST
    you are right there. NC has lots of working class whites that will vote in the primary whereas GA didn't have that many. But even at that, Obama lost the white vote here in GA.

    Parent
    Can we please have it said that (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:22:28 PM EST
    Folks in the south who vote against Obama are not necessarily doing it because of the color of his skin.   There are so many more factors-especially now- and GA6th might support a GA5th here when I say that if GA were to vote on Tuesday, I don't think Obama would win by as wide a margin this time around because many issues, from Bittergate on, but especially because of Wright.  Obama would lose some voters based on content, but mostly, he'd lose on how he handled the fall-out.  

    When Obama starts to look like a politician, he starts to lose.  I have seen Obama signs in my intown neighborhood and Decatur/DeKalb coming down since the debacle.  He is losing some of the more sane "creative class," who are coming to the realization that Obama isn't gonna change much of anything, so why not stick with the devil you know?

    (and, point of order: aa's are southern, too)

    Parent

    I'll (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:29:13 PM EST
    back you up on that. Obama has given people tons of reasons NOT to vote for him. Lots of people are turned off by the fact that he wants everything to be black vs. white. I'm sure a lot of latte liberals think now that he's unelectable.

    One thing a lot of secular liberals seem to miss is that Wright is a big deal to a lot of people. I go to church every Sunday and have NEVER heard the vile things Wright said even once. I'm willing to bet quite a few AA's aren't happy with Wright or with Obama's treatment of him.

    Parent

    So will white indys (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:06:33 PM EST
    who are excited by the dem race pull a Democratic ballot? If they do in large numbers, that could save Hillary.

    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:07:52 PM EST
    no idea. The indys are so unpredictable that I wouldn't even hazard a guess.

    Parent
    FWIW -- anecdotal only (none / 0) (#81)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:20:33 PM EST
    the Independents I know in Charlotte, NC (and granted it is not a ton, more like 5) have all told me they are voting for Hillary -- of course they all know I'm for Hillary, but they told me this after the Rev. Wright flap this week. I've only lived in NC for 2 & 1/2 years, but the people here are pretty button-down church-goers (practically the first question a person asks you when you meet them is "what church do you belong to?"), so I know the whole Rev. Wright thing hasn't played too well.  

    Parent
    This: (none / 0) (#88)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:24:10 PM EST
    practically the first question a person asks you when you meet them is "what church do you belong to?"
    is why I fu*king hate the south. Where I come from, that question sounds exactly like what it is: thinly disguised bigotry. Some of us don't have a church, and never have.

    Parent
    That's a bit of bigotry (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:53:51 PM EST
    Where do you go to church is a social thing, not a bigot thing.  Part of placing you, along with where do you work, where do you live, where did you go to school, etc.  In the south, they do like to know WHO you are.  But the days when people were always classified by religion or denomination are gone, thankfully. The question is NOT what denomination--which could easily be bigotry--but what church (social).  And it is ok to be a Unitarian Wiccan or an agnostic or an atheist--but the base social group often is the church still.  The worst thing that could happen to an atheist is opening the front door to a couple of earnest disciples wanting to 'save' you.  And that has happened to me too!

    Oh, and it getting to be ok to be gay, in or out of the church, too.

    Parent

    hey be kind (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by moll on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:04:16 PM EST
     
      practically the first question a person asks you when you meet them is "what church do you belong to?"

    is why I fu*king hate the south. Where I come from, that question sounds exactly like what it is: thinly disguised bigotry. Some of us don't have a church, and never have.

    They aren't necessarily looking to fight you. They are just being friendly, trying to swap identity clues with you. If you just say, "oh, I haven't been to church in..." and then sort of shrug, they will understand that you mean you don't want to identify by church membership, you are at least lapsed or more likely an atheist, and odds are quite good they will simply find something else to ask you instead.

    So please do not assume it is bigotry. View it instead as just a variation on "what do you do for a living?"

    This election has seen enough with generalizing people into categories and making rude comments about them IMO. We need to start trying to understand how to get along with people.


    Parent

    Andgarden just hates the south (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:10:30 PM EST
    there is no getting around it.  His insight into the other elections has been spot-on and insightful.  I find it rather upsetting to come against this knee-jerk bigotry.

    I still love you, guy, but--come on.

    Parent

    I guess the only thing I can say is (none / 0) (#153)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:17:56 PM EST
    that they hated me first.

    Or what am I supposed to make of results like this? Nowhere else in the country where there margins like that.

    Parent

    MI (none / 0) (#159)
    by Emma on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:26:41 PM EST
    Michigan hates us, too.  IIRC, the constitutinal amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions passed something like 75% to 25%, when Gore got 52% of the vote.  Lots of Dems hatin' on me that year.  It isn't just the south.

    Parent
    59% (none / 0) (#160)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:29:11 PM EST
    but not 85%.

    Parent
    I think it was bigger (none / 0) (#182)
    by Emma on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:49:21 PM EST
    Do you have a link to 59%?  I really do remember it being higher.

    I get the 86%.  I do. OTOH, the state when for GWB 60-40.  MI went for Gore and we still got thumped.  In fact, Ann Arbor, where the U of M is, is the only County that voted against the amendment.  Without that?  I wouldn't be surprised to see 80% numbers.

    I lived in the south for about 4 years in the late 80s. I don't recall it being any worse than the suburban/rural midwest where I grew up.

    Parent

    Yup, 59% (none / 0) (#189)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:54:33 PM EST
    Scroll to the bottom.

    Parent
    well, I don't hate you (none / 0) (#162)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:30:50 PM EST
    and Atlanta is so gay the Chattahoochee runs pink all summer.  

    As for your link, Kerry lost because he didn't man up--the same reason Obama will lose.  Surely you know by now that the straight man mentality is for the herd to follow the strongest leader.  Bush made Kerry look like a one-balled, googlie-eyed mime.  Shirley Franklin, our mayor, won because she came across as strong and fearless, which is exactly how politicians need to be--not just to win the south, but to win anybody who refuses to pay more than a dollar for a cup of coffee.

    We don't windsurf in Georgia.  (well,  okay, maybe some folks do off Tybee and Jeckyll, but they tend to hit the rocks and die, which serves them right).

    And, last I checked, it wasn't just the south that handed Bush the White House that year.  Look at the real map--not the blue and red one, but the purple one.  That tells the story.

    I wish I could change your mind about this, but we don't have all night and Jeralyn may delete all of this for being OT anyway.  

    And my outside clothes just turned into pajamas again, so it's time to go to bed.  Take care, my friend--from your southern pal.

    Parent

    I was actually just referring (none / 0) (#165)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:34:19 PM EST
    to the marriage amendment, but I take your point. Night.

    Parent
    Ever been to NOLA? (none / 0) (#170)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:39:28 PM EST
    second biggest population of gays in the US, after SF -- you can't paint the entire South with such broad strokes.

    Parent
    Frankly, (none / 0) (#173)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:42:28 PM EST
    if the south isn't bigoted, then nowhere is. I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, but exceptions prove the rule.

    Parent
    why? (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by moll on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:38:21 AM EST
    if the south isn't bigoted, then nowhere is. I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, but exceptions prove the rule.

    What is the purpose of this? Do you hope to gain something by establishing and asserting that an entire segment of the United States is inferior and worthy of hatred?

    Does this make the world a better place or something? I'm missing it.

    Incidentally, I am ashamed of the way our country has treated the South. Germany we could be generous to, and rebuild. But the South we keep around, in what appears to me to be a state of permanent poverty, so that whenever we feel bad about America's sins, we can go whip the scapegoat, and remind ourselves that however bad we are, the South is to blame. As if there wouldn't have been slavery in the US if it weren't for them or something.

    I don't like that. It reveals something about us that I don't find attractive.

    I like the idea of everyone being entitled to a fair trial much more appealing than group guilt of this sort. IMO it is its own form of bigotry, and just as ugly as any other.

    Parent

    I'm tempted to remark (2.00 / 1) (#230)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:48:37 AM EST
    that at least the Germans took responsibility for what they did.

    But we're way off topic, so I'll let this drop.

    Parent

    Southerners have better manners (4.00 / 1) (#239)
    by angie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:55:33 AM EST
    It wouldn't hurt you to get some.
    Don't bother to respond, because I will be scrolling past your hateful, misinformed posts from here on out -- to compare modern day Southerners to Nazis -- completely disgusting.  

    Parent
    I have done no such thing (2.00 / 1) (#240)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:56:46 AM EST


    Parent
    Stunning documentary: Still Waiting (none / 0) (#233)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:49:32 AM EST
    subtitled Life After Katrina, a movie online -- to view the aftermath through the eyes of an amazing family of 150, all taken in by the one who had left NOLA.  

    It ought to be required viewing for every American, certainly every voter.  They would have to agree with you.  If the government had drowned a Northern city, I can't imagine it would not be well on its way to being rebuilt, and better, by now.

    Parent

    I should be clear (none / 0) (#243)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:59:17 AM EST
    They deserve every bit of help we can give them.

    Frankly, though, I'm not sure how different the response would have been in, say, Camden New Jersey.

    Parent

    I bet our food is better than yours (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:08:45 PM EST
    and we aren't so bad in the literary department either -- Capote, Williams, Faulkner, Welty, O'Connor & McCullers to name a few. I admit, the question about "which church do you belong to" was shocking to me too when I first moved here -- growing up in NOLA no one ever asked that (but I think it was because everyone was Catholic there, and everyone just assumed everyone else was too). But, getting to know these people, I really don't think it is bigotry -- they really are very involved with their churches and their church communities are an important part of their lives and the question is more of a "getting to know you kind of thing." Tacky, yes, but so is asking "what do you do?" I don't ask these kinds of questions myself, but I don't think people are being bigots or snobs when they ask me -- I just think they are dull conversationalists.

    Parent
    In my part of the south (none / 0) (#125)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:54:52 PM EST
    well actually southwest, almost nobody would ever ask which church you belong to.  That falls into the category of personal information and none of someone else's business.  I was taught that it is poor manners to pry into someone else's affairs.


    Parent
    In St. Louis And Maybe MO (none / 0) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:12:29 PM EST
    the question is where did you go to high school. IMO it is a quick way to determine someone's social economical position (i.e. class). People here say that is not so but I disagree. Don't like this aspect of my city.

    Parent
    In the south (none / 0) (#156)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:24:22 PM EST
    it's easier because you can tell by accent.  That's why I'm always yelling at Kyra Sedgwick on the Closer because I have family living in trailer parks who don't talk that trashy.  They should've just made her from Arkansas; that's the only way to justify a woman of that stature talking with that kind of accent (you just can't wash off Arkansas; ask Lucinda Williams)

    I never get asked what church I go to, but I always get asked what I do for a living (mostly because my standard motto: "if I wear it outside, it stops being pajamas!" doesn't tend to jibe with the car I drive or the restaurants I visit.)  When I drive my sports car up in the mountains (with my Clinton sticker!) sometimes I get asked what my husband does, but when I set them straight, they nod appreciatively more often than not.

    Parent

    It's called a shiboleth... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:26:06 PM EST
    These kinds of questions were/are prevalent in Northern Ireland. I've heard where they were part of the hiring process at Bushmills, a very Unionist shop.

    How you spelled your name. What neighborhood you lived in. Where you went to school...church...what have you.

    All were used to determined whether you'd be hired.

    Parent

    Good (none / 0) (#79)
    by sas on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:20:09 PM EST
    for the party....before it commits the disaster of nominating a sure GE loser

    Parent
    I never understood... (none / 0) (#48)
    by OrangeFur on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:57:49 PM EST
    ... why Clinton won Tennessee so easily. It has a 17% AA population, compared with 21% for North Carolina.

    Parent
    Because they knew the Clintons and didn't leave... (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by alexei on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:22:14 PM EST
    for the bright new Unity Pony.  They remembered how good it was under Bill.  Believe me, I am terribly disappointed in the AAs voting in such numbers for this guy.  He hasn't done a thing for the black community and he has ignored them totally and taken them for granted after he played the race card in SC.

    Parent
    The Chicago Defender, leading AA paper (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:49:02 PM EST
    may be playing a significant role unseen by so many in the media, who always neglect the black press.    (The role of the Defender in the Great Migration from the South -- the Defender circulated underground in the South, even though it was banned by many states -- is only recently being realized by many historians who rely on white-press sources in the past to tell the story of too much in the past.)

    As the Defender goes, as the first of the mighty black press chains more than a century ago, so go so many black papers in this country.  And as you can imagine, being that it's based in Chicago, the Defender is proudly pro-Obama.

    Parent

    I think it's mostly that (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:10:52 PM EST
    there are still lots of white Dems in TN.

    In the south, Hillary can win when white conservatives/moderates are still registered Democrats. Remember, until the 1960s, EVERYONE south of Washington DC and north of Jacksonville was a Democrat, so there's a tradition.

    Also TN is quite Appalachian.

    Parent

    I think I'd disagree! (none / 0) (#100)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:35:36 PM EST
    I did PR for the university, and we wrote a lot about the three states of Tennessee.  That is true geographically, geologically, and culturely.  Memphis was old South, Ole' Man River, cotton bales, Boss Crump, and hostile to but dependent on blacks,

    Nashville was the center of government, Grand Old Opry, the other side of the Cumberland Plateau, with beautiful rolling land.  Like West Tenn., Middle Tenn. voted democratic.

    East Tennessee is true Appalachia, frontier mentality to some extent, moonshining, a battleground in the Civil War with some preference for the Union and abolition, and a habit of voting republican.

    Parent

    I don't disagree with anything you say (none / 0) (#119)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:49:39 PM EST
    So I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me. ;-)

    Parent
    OT, I know (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Lil on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:57:04 PM EST
    but this sounds like every argument I've ever had with my father. Made me laugh.

    Parent
    Didn't you say (none / 0) (#143)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:11:21 PM EST
    Tennessee is very much Appalachia, or words to that effect?  Tennesseans were very often at war with each other.*  And West and Middle tended to consider East very backward and full of barefoot hillbillies.  (With Oak Ridge holding its nose, I suppose.)

    *That's why the state wound up with U-T at Chattanooga and U-T at all the other places I can't even recall.  Knoxville was not pleased!

    Parent

    What I meant to say (none / 0) (#146)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:13:02 PM EST
    what that there's enough appalachia that Hillary could get huge margins there.

    Parent
    Great question (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:11:28 PM EST
    for which I've got no answer, but I've thought about quite a bit.  Maybe proximity to Arkansas, where she won in a huge blowout.


    Parent
    Arkansas is a southern anomaly: (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:13:05 PM EST
    almost no blacks.

    Parent
    Arkansas has 16% aa population (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:35:11 PM EST
    VA: 19%  TN: 17%  USA: 13%

    Just for fun: OR: 2%  WA: 3%  AZ: 4%  ME: 1% VT: 1%  NH: 1%

    Boy, considering how racist we are down here, we sure do have a lot of aa's!  Somebody better tell them they're much better off in these other states.

    Parent

    That's a higher percentage than I had (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:42:43 PM EST
    remembered. I think, then, that the key thing to look at is what percentage black make up of the Democratic party.

    Parent
    You're probably recalling (none / 0) (#157)
    by hlr on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:26:04 PM EST
    that the Black vote in AR went for Bush in 2000 60:40.

    However, 21% of Dems statewide voted for Bush, so it doesn't say anything about party registration.

    Parent

    It's also where Bill was (none / 0) (#74)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:16:22 PM EST
    governor for 10 years.  Obama had no chance in Arkansas where they intimately know both Clintons and like them a lot.

    The number of blacks is most likely inconsequential in this case.


    Parent

    Impossible to falsify (none / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:21:30 PM EST
    But the Clintons are well known elsewhere in the south, and Hillary won only TN, AR, and OK (and TX if you like). Race had everything to do with it in the other cases.

    Parent
    Lookit (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:26:48 PM EST
    you have no proof of this race theme you keep pushing.  None.  I really enjoy your comments and you're a smart guy, but you keep making these blanket statements about the "racist south," as if that's the only reason why any of us (outside of Atlanta) vote for Clinton.  To say we are more or less racist than any other state in the union is remarkably blind coming from someone whose opinions I otherwise respect.

    THe issue is far more nuanced than you make it seem.  It's much more interesting to talk about that as opposed to knee-jerking on these old stereotypes.

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:29:25 PM EST
    but what I'm saying is that black people have been voting for Obama because of race. White people have tended to vote for one or the other for different reasons. I could show you examples of whites voting for Clinton based on race, but the black examples are far more numbers. Indeed, they are the rule.

    Blacks are practicing identity politics, and I don't begrudge them that. I might feel the same way about a viable gay candidate, for example.

    Parent

    well, this: (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:50:58 PM EST
    HIllary could make it close or even win if this works like an old fashioned southern election and the vote is dictated exclusively by race.

    ...and you saying you f-ing hate the south makes it pretty clear that you have a bias, and what I am telling you is that your bias is very narrow-minded and shortsighted.  You were saying last night that no pro-choice dem could get elected outside of Atlanta, and I told you that there certainly were some, and you moved onto talk about segregation.

    Go to Iowa and see how long it takes for someone to ask you what church you go to.  Go to Indiana and count the number of Nazi flags.  Talk to Fred Phelps in Kansas.  Visit the Aryan Brotherhood in California, Montana, Wyoming and South Dakota.

    It is not just the south that has these stereotypes you espouse; it is AMERICA.  The farther you get from a large, metropolitan city, the more conservative communities tend to be.  (and that's a very blanket statement on my part, because there are of course huge exceptions.  Lanier Meaders almost singlehandedly revitalized the north GA mountains)

    Parent

    Agree with you Kathy. Whites are voting for ... (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by alexei on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:00:22 PM EST
    Hillary because of economic reasons in all the states.  Once the economy supplanted Iraq, Clinton has captured the white vote and it is gotten bigger.  AAs are voting for identity and women have some identity but love that Hillary is the better choice by far (that's me).  I would never vote for Elizabeth Dole for instance.  I wouldn't vote for McKaskill either (though I did give her money but won't ever again).   I am also not going to vote for Pelosi.  And it isn't just because they are supporting Obama.

    Parent
    Yes, I have a bias (2.00 / 0) (#138)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:08:39 PM EST
    and yes, lots of America is like the south. But my position is that there's something special and bad about the way much of the south--and yes, america, but especially the south--conducts its discourse about politics and religion. I think most of that problem stems from a living history of various kinds of bigotry.

    The way people vote and campaign there bears out what I say.

    Parent

    lots of America is not like the south (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:17:55 PM EST
    the south is like a lot of America.

    But, you're just not going to see it, and I'm not sure why, but it really disappoints me.  I'm obviously not going to change how you view us down here, so I'll stop with this last bit:  keep in mind that folks like Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Martin Luther King came out of the south. REM, James Brown, Joanne Woodward, Jasper Johns, Alice Walker, Conrad Aiken...the list goes on, and includes a lot of us here on TL whom you seem to dismiss as anomalies.

    We can't all be bad.  

    Parent

    andgarden, i'm not from the south, but (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:37:53 AM EST
    i know too many good people--both black and white (but all progressive)--from the south to be comfortable seeing them smeared across the board like this.  it's really not fair; and i'd be hurt and offended if i were in their shoes.  would it hurt for all of us to try a little harder to understand each other and to be more tolerant?

    Parent
    Well, aren't you special? (none / 0) (#149)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:17:24 PM EST
    Don't know what to say to that little screed except I hope your hate doesn't make you bitter and clingy.

    Parent
    The racist North (none / 0) (#164)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:33:39 PM EST
    I went to college in Dallas, TX & my roommate was a girl from a suburb of Boston -- she always talked about how racist "we" in the South were.  I went with her in October for the head of the Charles and her town had not one black person in it -- when she came with  me to NOLA for Mardi Gras she was shocked and scared by all the "black people" in NOLA -- even asking me how I could live there. Yes, the South has racism, but we live, work and socialize with far more AAs then most Northerners do and we aren't "scared" when we see an AA walking towards us on the street. In my experience, Northerners are just as or more racist then Southerners, which is why they are always talking about how racist we are.

    Parent
    Where I come from in the north (none / 0) (#169)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:37:12 PM EST
    we have about as many blacks as whites. So no, for me it's not that.

    And you will never ever hear me defend the north on race relations.  We just didn't need to be invaded to end slavery or have the rest of the country tell us that yes, we did have to let black people vote.

    Parent

    I'm sorry to tell you this (none / 0) (#175)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:45:03 PM EST
    but the North didn't invade the South to end slavery -- the North invaded the South after it ceded from the Union in order to preserve the Union, to keep the US strong against threats like England & France -- ending slavery was a part of it, but not the central reason for the war.

    Parent
    That is absolutely true (none / 0) (#181)
    by dissenter on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:48:16 PM EST
    Lincoln said he just wanted to preserve the union either way. People forget that part. Also the majority of Northerners who wanted to end slavery were more concerned with unfair economics than the morality of the issue. Sad but true.

    Parent
    That's simply false (none / 0) (#185)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:51:48 PM EST
    Look at how Abe Lincoln won his election. Look at what he campaigned on. Read the Cooper Union address.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#191)
    by dissenter on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:55:51 PM EST
     Lincoln once wrote," My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery."

    Parent
    Do you know why (none / 0) (#196)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:02:52 AM EST
    the south seceded? Because the north was by-and-large unwilling to enforce the fugitive slave laws. Lincoln knew full well that the war was about slavery. The south made it so.

    Meanwhile, go back and reread cooper union.

    Parent

    No, he was a politician (none / 0) (#198)
    by angie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:06:10 AM EST
    sad, but true, Lincoln was a politician -- a great politician, but a politician nonetheless, and when you go to war it is better to sell it on a "moral" issue that people can rally behind like freedom, democracy, or ending slavery than it is to say the truth -- ie, we need the land, we need the oil or we need to preserve the union. I'm not defending slavery here, and I'm not denying the fact that because it was such a horrible thing it gets the most "press" -- but the major effect of the civil war was an undreamed of by our founders strong federal government and the end of state's rights, which was Lincoln's goal. And, btw, he was right. The US would not be the US if he hadn't been.

    Parent
    I have no time for BS marxist history (none / 0) (#201)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:07:34 AM EST


    Parent
    I have no time for (none / 0) (#203)
    by angie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:10:50 AM EST
    someone who doesn't know anything about the civil war except what he read in his HS American History book. And who obviously doesn't know anything about Marxism for that matter, either.

    Parent
    Ach (none / 0) (#205)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:14:33 AM EST
    The Marxist theory of history is not Marxism. It can exist independently from the political theory. It often does.

    And believe it or not, my knowledge of American history goes quite beyond any high school text.

    Parent

    I can't believe it (none / 0) (#213)
    by angie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:30:45 AM EST
    from what you've written here. So, why don't we both just call a truce -- I'm not trying to fight with you.

    Parent
    Glad I missed the segration (none / 0) (#139)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:08:42 PM EST
    parts.  Though from what I read last night, "hate the south" is not a big surprise.  

    Parent
    Pretty Much (none / 0) (#101)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:36:08 PM EST
    Ms. Ferrarro was right then.

    After thinking about this a lot, I decided I'm willing to suspend some disbelief on this myself.  

    Parent

    She shouldn't have said it (none / 0) (#110)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:41:02 PM EST
    But Obama has banked the bast majority of black votes. Not so for Hillary and white votes.

    Parent
    TX I do like, thank you very much (none / 0) (#111)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:41:22 PM EST
    and race didn't win it for her here.  Unless you mean that the AA vote didn't come through for him quite like they did in parts of the deep south.

    Hillary has some deep roots here, from the McGovern campaign in '72, and those old contacts really came through for her.  That was especially true in the hispanic communities.

    By the way, in one of your earlier comments you mentioned that in TN lots of older people still identified as democrats and may have voted accordingly.  That's also true in TX.  There are tons of people who, if asked, would say they were democrats but haven't voted for a democratic president since Johnson.  Odd but true.


    Parent

    Race was important in TX too (none / 0) (#115)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:44:50 PM EST
    whites split their vote like they have in the rest of the country, blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama, and Hispanics overwhelmingly for Hillary. She had the larger coalition--by a hair.

    Parent
    Four hairs ur, % points. A hair is Guam. (none / 0) (#124)
    by alexei on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:54:38 PM EST


    Parent
    A 4% hair (none / 0) (#134)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:02:47 PM EST
    with 84% AA vote going for Obama.  So what's your race is important based on?  Only the AA vote?


    Parent
    Huh? Almost no AAs in Arkansas? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:50:06 PM EST
    See the census stats.  Not as many AAs as in some Southern states, but still above the national average.  

    Parent
    ? 16% is almost none? (none / 0) (#199)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:06:32 AM EST


    Parent
    I think it is history (none / 0) (#179)
    by TN Dem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:48:03 PM EST
    I am an East TN girl; read surrounded by Republicans. Memphis usually gives us any shot at a Dem win of any sort due to it's large AA - Dem population.

    Two things to consider: TN went for Clinton in both '92 and '96. We typically go Republican in Presidential elections, but we remember the good ole days and we are a loyal group to those who treat us well ;o)

    The other thing: Phil Bredesen is very popular now. Maybe we are remembering that Dems ain't so bad here in the eastern part of the state...

    Parent

    the aa population is almost 1/4. (none / 0) (#177)
    by kangeroo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:45:34 PM EST
    only a handful of states have larger aa populations.

    Parent
    I doubt... (none / 0) (#28)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:38:49 PM EST
    that at this stage, there are too many AA's that are undecided and so I'm not sure that your suggestion that the south differs but I don't know.

    I was trying to relate what the guy on Fox was saying and to be honest...it made a lot of sense (scary...I know).

    Parent

    She figured out how to finesse the geeks? (none / 0) (#39)
    by goldberry on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:52:57 PM EST
    The creative class thinks very highly of themselves but they can't hold a candle to the research professionals in the triangle area.  She might have figured out a way to tickle their fancy.

    Would they like her Breast Cancer Plan? (none / 0) (#57)
    by katiebird on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:05:38 PM EST
    It seems like it would possibly affect jobs in that area??

    Parent
    James Carville said (none / 0) (#47)
    by katiebird on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:57:00 PM EST
    Carville also says Clinton needs to win both Indiana and North Carolina on Tuesday. "The onus is on her. She's got to do better than tie. If she wins Indiana and North Carolina, she's the nominee. She's got to shock the system, and she may be shocking it."

    Would he have said this if Hillary wasn't looking very good in NC?

    Why would he set her up for unmet expectations?

    but you missed the money quote... (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:39:26 PM EST
    "If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two."

    vintage Carville...

    Parent

    Amazng quote. I always have to wonder (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:54:07 PM EST
    what he must be like off-screen.  I mean, he looks like he actually is holding back when in front of the camera.  I can't stand Mary Matalin, but I gotta say, she likes her men the way I like mine:  loyal as all get out and always good for great laffs.

    Parent
    Mary M (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by dissenter on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:58:57 PM EST
    I saw her on Letterman or Leno. Can't remember which. She was with James. She was asked about Clinton...as in can she really still win. Mary Matlin said, "I would never bet against the Clintons. They have whipped my butt too many times."

    It was hilarious.

    Parent

    Great quote - I wish I had seen that! (none / 0) (#133)
    by alexei on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:01:35 PM EST


    Parent
    How unexpected (none / 0) (#135)
    by OrangeFur on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:03:08 PM EST
    ... that the person from The War Room cited for profanity was not Carville.

    I don't remember everything he said, but I do remember him saying "we need to be on this like stink on sh-t", as opposed to "white on rice", as I've heard people say.

    Parent

    Incredible two-some (none / 0) (#200)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:07:23 AM EST
    James is always more entertaining when Mary is with him on a panel. I love watching couples who support each other with such admiration and respect.  

    Mary's humor is so dry, but so funny. James is just unique in so many ways. Ever read his book, "And the horse he road in on"?

    Parent

    The quote made my day (none / 0) (#144)
    by bridget on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:12:03 PM EST
    hadn't heard that yet - thanks for posting

    Carville is so right.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#49)
    by OrangeFur on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:58:59 PM EST
    ... he says if she wins both, she's the nominee. Not that if she doesn't, he's the nominee.

    Parent
    I actually agree (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Makarov on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:18:51 PM EST
    with the statement, "if she wins NC and IN, she is the nominee".  I don't believe Clinton losing NC means she won't be.

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#51)
    by katiebird on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:00:41 PM EST
    Still, I don't think he's mention the possibility in such strong language if it was totally out of the question.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:04:26 PM EST
    Either Carville totally mispoke or something is up. Why would she stop even if NC was close though? She's got blowouts coming in KY and WV.

    Parent
    It Seems Strange To Me That Obama Is (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:13:47 PM EST
    going back to N.C. If N.C. is in the bag, wouldn't he go to IN where he is behind to try and close the gap?

    Parent
    The message (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:17:06 PM EST
    that I'm getting is that IN is a lost cause for Obama however, he's worried about NC. If he's campaigning for votes in Durham, a major latte area, and Fayetteville, high minority area then things must be a little tighter than we all think.

    I don't know. I'm sometimes afraid to hope. Of course, Easley could have been a great help. We'll all know in a few days.

    Parent

    Where was he right before the PA vote? (none / 0) (#174)
    by nycstray on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:42:58 PM EST
    was he in his strong area or hers?

    Parent
    It's worse than that, I think (none / 0) (#251)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:04:05 AM EST
    It's been a while since I've been over to Durham, but in my experience it's not a latte area.  Chapel Hill, yes - sometimes referred to as the People's Republic of Chapel Hill.  But the city of Durham is a heavily black working class place, and the black community there is very organized.  There's Duke University, but otherwise not very latte-ish.

    If he's going to Durham to firm up support, he's in trouble.

    Parent

    He's just following the leader (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:33:30 PM EST
    Aren't all three Clinton's campaigning across NC again tomorrow?  That's a family that moves mountains; he should be scared. Especially since she is talking about her policies.

    Parent
    OT: Jeralyn (none / 0) (#90)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:26:19 PM EST
    There's no open thread, so after you check this link, feel free to delete this message.

    The link you asked for earlier on the Obama speech where he indicates people lose their dignity in hard times (very paraphrased) is here.  There is no video, just a transcript. I don't think it would raise eyebrows, but I didn't see the tape. Maybe it comes across worse when spoken.  It reads boring, which might be why no crowd response.

    Sorry, fixed the link (none / 0) (#141)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:08:47 PM EST
    Fixed link

    Wow... check out this diary by Sirota (none / 0) (#178)
    by MarkL on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:46:39 PM EST
    at DailyObama
    I, David Sirota am vying with Douglas Feith in the contest for "stupidest man alive"

    He is a bit dim. (none / 0) (#183)
    by Marco21 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:50:36 PM EST
    I've only seen two polls in as many weeks that has him slightly behind there - and of course we all know about his spreadsheet.

    Sirota: Another former hero of mine struck down by CDS.

    Parent

    Sirota may win that contest. (none / 0) (#194)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:58:29 PM EST
    He's so full of sh-t his eyes have to be brown and has been for quite a long time.  :-)

    Parent
    oh god, i wish i hadn't clicked on that. ugh. n/t (none / 0) (#225)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:42:59 AM EST


    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#188)
    by dissenter on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:53:09 PM EST
    You guys need to get a life

    WEll (none / 0) (#190)
    by Emma on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:54:38 PM EST
    That union leader did say Hillary has testicular fourtitude.  Carville just did the math wrong.

    you don't know (none / 0) (#197)
    by Emma on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:03:05 AM EST
    who I am.  So don't presume anything.  Just FYI.

    Parent
    Did Carville suggest that? (none / 0) (#220)
    by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:40:35 AM EST
    I don't remember reading that?

    Parent
    what exactly did he say? (none / 0) (#235)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:50:32 AM EST


    Parent
    Cojones (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by tree on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:02:05 AM EST
    "If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two"

    Parent
    Please. No it doesn't. (none / 0) (#241)
    by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:57:13 AM EST
    Carville is supporting a woman for president and has two daughters of his own. Seems pretty ridiculous to say he means women need to be men to succeed.

     He was saying  "Obama is weak."

    C'mon.

    Parent

    Stop. (none / 0) (#204)
    by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:14:08 AM EST
    Your fake outrage level is at dangerous levels.

    Reads forced to me... (none / 0) (#214)
    by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:31:02 AM EST
    but I don't know you. I mentioned my displeasure with adding testies to Hillary last night.  Carville's comments did give me pause but didn't anger me. His Judas comments were more offensive.

    If he'd have just called Obama weak, would that have been fine? I'd agree to that term.

    He had a... (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:48:38 AM EST
    10 day press boycott, canceled a scheduled debate, had to redefine his comments regarding Wright with more gusto and gets cranky when questioned over breakfast food.  

    None of these things gives me the impression of being strength. Seems you admit he's acting like a politician, which seems to be weak coming from a man who is above politics as usual.

    Parent

    He's behaved pretty well... (none / 0) (#245)
    by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:01:08 AM EST
    my letting his surrogates say anything they'd like with impunity. Unless you truly believe the Clintons are horrible racists who send around photos of Barack in African guard.

    I don't work for her campaign either and I disagree with her at times. I can however smell his BS a mile away.

    Parent

    then I suggest you "man up" (none / 0) (#224)
    by angie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:42:16 AM EST
    because if Obama gets the nomination, this alleged insult will look like child's play.

    Parent
    You know if you are going to get (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by tree on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:59:00 AM EST
    on your high horse about names, maybe you should reconsider using the terms "rethuglican" and "fascists" to refer to Republicans. After all, your candidate is the one who has been praising them and their policies.

    Parent
    Might not be fake (none / 0) (#216)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:33:16 AM EST
    but it sure is a whole lot of tedious.  

    What part of tedious did you not get? (none / 0) (#246)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:01:16 AM EST
    You are the worst example of a chatterer.  Go read the rules and get a clue.  How many comments and for how long are you going to whine about Carville?  Get a grip.

    Parent
    "Jessiecrats" helping Hillary (none / 0) (#228)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:44:55 AM EST
    Great Story Here

    dude, you're coming across as (none / 0) (#237)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:52:55 AM EST
    a tad, um, hysterical here.  i'm a woman and frankly i didn't find carville's comment, or even the "testicular fortitude" comment about hillary, offensive at all.  i mean, i can understand why some people might have a problem with it, but personally i don't think it's a big deal.  for me there are infinitely more important things going on in this election, let alone this country, to quibble about this crap.

    I just attended a Bill Clinton rally (none / 0) (#248)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:01:43 AM EST
    Nice crowd filling a gym in the high school in Reidsville. Maybe about 800 or so people?  He spoke for at least an hour, and despite it being his last stop in a long day, he did a nice job, kept the crowd that had been waiting for quite a while interested, and mingled with the crowd for a good while afterward.

    I purposely went out to see this rural event to gauge the crowd and it was definitely filled with older white folks.  Some blacks were sprinkled in and there were some younger people, but mainly it was a fifty and up crowd.  Old women everywhere!

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#250)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:03:55 AM EST
    a new thread is here.

    ProudLiberalPatiriot is suspended, I'll be cleaning this thread.

    I'll say it again (none / 0) (#252)
    by tree on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:05:45 AM EST
    Tawanda!  Night all.

    ProudLiberalPatriot (none / 0) (#253)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:07:12 AM EST
    turned out to be a commenter twice banned before using different names. His account has been wiped out and his 46 comments are gone. If the comments to this thread no longer makes sense, it's because many readers responded to him.

    Clintons, Obama Head Back to North Carolina Monday | 238 comments (238 topical)