I'm rather dull. Please explain, yet again, why it is good that republicans support Obama. Thank you.

I thought Sean Nelson saw it as an opportunity to write about himself at great length. I only say that because when someone says their undecided and you ask them why, they begin to pontificate not on the two choices, but on their own lives, feelings, experiences, and navel lint. Not just Sean Nelson: at my caucus the undecideds talked about themselves a lot, as do the comments supporting Nelson's post.

But I got bored and didn't read past the first half dozen paragraphs. Did he ever make up his mind or does he need us to talk about him more?

Of course we could also say this:

1) When it's Clinton vs McCain, moderate Repubican women (and suburban women) go to Clinton.

When it's Obama vs McCain, moderate Republican women (and suburban women) go to McCain.

2) When it's Clinton vs McCain, Latinos go overwhelmingly to Clinton.

When it's Obama vs McCain, Latinos are more evenly split. Or they stay home and don't vote.

So your arguments go both ways.

Electing a man who has little experience, who will not inspire moderate Republican women and Latinos, is not a strategy for winning the White House.

The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot.

How does Obama create a coalition to win? And no, just winning over independents is not enough. Not when you lose Latinos and part of the Democratic base.

1. Obama's appealing to independents NOW, but there has been no general election campaign yet and in one, the GOP is going to atack and the national press is going to rake over Obama and his % of support from R's and I's will fall -- IMHO dramatically.

Ignoring this is like preparing to cross the mountains on foot and neglecting to bring tents, clothes, avalanche beacons, etc.

2. When the GOP says "we'd love to run against Hillary" you shouldn't trust them. IF they really wanted to shey'd shut up about it. What you think they're dumb?

3. Obama supporter being compared to Mormom cultist:

right on.

Krugman says this today, after Referring to Nixonland and how some Obama supporters are falling into that territory:

"most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. ....many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the ...way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
[such as Whitewater] ...Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.
.....MSNBC, .....….asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” .....I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign.... if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do. ....…..progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.
…..I’d like to see ...strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election."

Here on Slog we have Obama supporters who :
1. laugh at penis jokes ("cock is bigger" = "caucus bigger") in favor of Obama and derogatory to Clinton
2. Accuse Clinton of stealing the nomonation if superdelegates (ie the existing rules, to which Obama never raised a complaint until lately) put her over the top
3. Accuse Clinton of cheating if she wants FL seated ALTHOUGH neither she nor the people of Fl nor the other candidates EVER agreed that they wouldn't try to seat those delegates and it was Obama who cmapiagned in FL by showing TV ads not Clinton.
4. Obama supporters at my precinct said Cllinton's health care attempt in the 1990s failed because she was so in bed with the health care industrty. These types of total lies or inaccurate statements are all too common.

I've said many times Obama is a great candidate and agreat leader and I hope he's on the ticket, but since I believe he may go into free fall under a real (GOP) campaign, I think Clinton's more electable. But I hope both are on the ticket.

So Obama supporters, how about it?

ARe you all descending into Nixonland when you accuse Clinton of stealing a nomination ?

Do you in fact disrespect Clinton, the choice of roughly half the party?

Do you all feel venemous as Mr. Krugman says?

What exactly distinguishes the hope-will-conquer-all-therefore-R's-andI's-will-suddenly-realize-for-the-last-50-years-they-were-tragically-mistaken-about-their-own-vies-and-really-they-actually-want-super-liberal-policies-enacted-like-Obama-wants projection from the typical LaRouche, Leninist or Naderite projection?

That's it isn't it-- that Obama's going to charm all those folks into becoming progressives.

Isn't that your theory of how he will win and magically get everything passed?

And that the GOP won't attack him or it will just slide off?

Please tell how we get there. You're relying on his charismatic personality, right?

What people are missing is the opportunities for SEX during the caucus. I got hit on two times at Eckstien Middle School and took one guy home with me after we caucused. And let me tell you that was one big hot caucus I took part in.

I love you, elenchos.

"I really can’t truly choose between these two candidates, both of whom I admire and mistrust separately and equally".

That sentence really hit the nail on the head in terms of how I felt -- even though I spend way more time reading and thinking about this election than probably 95% of Americans, I was undecided between the two for a long time (I had planning on voting for Kucinich to weasel out of it).

The thing is, with the amount of time I devote to the election, I highly doubt that I would have been swayed by a couple of neighbors' two minute speeches at a caucus (I live in a primary state). So, I still don't see the point of caucuses...

@ #1: It's not good. First of all I want a president that will push through an agenda in Congress, not a president that is going to "reach out" to Republicans and kiss their ass.

Also, yes a few Republicans support Obama. But it is at the expense of the Democratic base. Look at states that are a deep shade of blue. With the exception of Washington, they mainly voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. Obama wins big in states that he cannot win in November -- Idaho and North Dakota for example. Not a good general election strategy.

Obama does poorly amongst the Democratic base. He might win some independents and some moderate Republicans but he will lose some Democrats as well who will stay home and not vote.

@2 - I didn't see any of this supposed venom at my caucus; I saw people being respectful of each other's opinions and explaining why they feel the way they do. I have been a Hillary non-fan for much longer than I've been an Obama fan, for what it's worth. I don't think the sun shines out of his butt, I wouldn't walk over hot coals, I just like him better. I happen to think that he has a better chance in the General Election, but that's not the main basis for my choice.

@1 - It's not that all republicans support him (they don't - although today's column by William Kristol has me a little spooked), it's that he has a chance with smart, non-ideological republicans (yes, there are some) who can think for themselves, even against someone like McCain. Theoretically, anyway.

I'm going to stop taking unPC seriously. This is getting silly.

Julie, do you realize that ever single sentence you just wrote is a statement about yourself? Read what you said again. The reason you can't decide is that you can't stop thinking about you. Think about the candidates instead and see if that gets you anywhere.

passionateJus, I think you're having trouble recognizing something known as "winning." When voters leave their party and join ours, that means we are "winning." It's what non-Democrats know as "victory." It's strange, but you do get used to it and after a while, being a winner starts to feel good. Fear not.

@8 - I feel exactly the opposite. I see Obama inspiring and motivating Dems to get out the vote and be active in the campaign; I see people holding their noses and voting for Clinton, the way we did with Kerry. I freely admit I could be completely wrong, that's just my impression.

Obama has MORE experience than Clinton does. He's fought more competitive elections than she has, and has a much better and much longer track record submitting and passing legislation.

unPC, when you figure out how to organize your thoughts a little more coherently, and abandon the totally ridiculous ones, and figure out how to make your points without attacking your candidate's opponent's supporters, rather than the candidate himself, maybe people will pay attention to you. Until then, no.

Republicans and Democrats AGREE on a number of foundational assumptions. War on Terror must continue unabated. Military spending will not be significantly cut. Neoliberal globalization is the way to go: "free trade" agreements all the way. The War on Drugs will substitute for a full employment program or income supplements for the working poor.

The main difference between R's and D's in this presidential primary is total privatization vs public private partnerships, unilateral vs multilateral militarism, market over environment vs market-based environmentalism. Most of these debates are expressed through pure identity politics, which candidates use while accusing their opponents of being "divisive." Outside these debates over the form and not direction of American society, those who really want a radical change in American foreign policy or who want to challenge corporate power are almost totally marginalized even as their language of social justice is coopted to promote "change."

But ok, sure, I'll vote for the Dem nominee to stop the right, will even support Obama cause I think he has a better chance with independents and Republicans. Voting is about compromise, right?

wow, unPC, the fun just doesn't stop with you, does it? even on a monday morning!

elenchos... Obviously, the articles I read or interviews/speeches I watch must all be about me, and not, you know, the candidates.

I apologize for the fact that I voted based on my opinions that I hold about the candidates. Also for the fact that I used the first person in a comment on a blog. Whoops.

Also, yes a few Republicans support Obama. But it is at the expense of the Democratic base ... Obama does poorly amongst the Democratic base.

This is getting silly. Obama doesn't have support amongst faithful Democrats? You're seriously going to argue that?
And how has Obama's wooing of voters outside the base actually compromised liberal principles? Don't just point to rhetoric - point to action. His voting record is hardly that of a conservative.

Actually, some of the Obama supporters at my caucus were total assholes. They started screaming at the Clinton supporters, even though there were many more of the Obama people. The Clinton people were totally shocked that they were getting screamed at, and whenever they tried to give their little two minute speeches, Obama people shouted them down and didn't let them speak. It was really embarrassing and sad. We, along with quite a few of the normal Obama people, left halfway through because it was so annoying and inappropriate. To the Clinton people at the Madrona School Caucus: Sorry those Obama people were such dickheads!

There's no excuse for screaming at a caucus. If it had happened at mine I would have said "one more peep out of you and you'll be sorry".

The "uncommitted"s in our precinct weren't really undecided; they were just hoping to carry an uncommitted delegate to the LD convention. Once it became apparent they didn't have enough for a delegate, they switched -- to Obama.

The suggestion that Obama doesn't have any support in the "Democratic base" is loony. Of course he does. 95% of Clinton voters will vote for Obama in the general; the rest will stay home. A smaller percentage of Obama supporters will vote for Clinton. How much smaller? I don't know. But the rest won't stay home; they'll vote for Clinton's opponent.

@17

We had this fucking bitch who seemed to only be there for the purpose of degrading Hillary supporters. When it was obvious that Obama held the court in our precinct, she displayed the ugliest smile I've ever seen and marched out of the room.

Everything about her made me want to slap her in the face. She obviously doesn't care that she's being inconsiderate and rude to her party members, as well as her neighbors.

I have one neighbor that I hate now.

I fully agree on the immoral charge, and also had my own negative encounter with the Obama supporters, as lengthily detailed in my comment on Sean Nelson's post.

I heartily encourage everyone to read Stanley Fish's piece in the NYT, a follow-up to the one he wrote last week. As another commenter on the original post points out, and I agree with, choosing Obama because the Republicans say they'd rather run against Clinton (as opposed to choosing him based on his stances or voting record or character or myriad reasons), is voting out of fear. I defer to Mr. Fish:

Electability (a concept invoked often) is a code word that masks the fact that the result of such reasoning is to cede the political power to the ranters. Carolyn Kay (456) makes the point when she observes that if you vote against Clinton because you fear the virulence of her most vocal enemies, “you have allowed the right-wing hatemongers to decide who our candidate will be.” Underlying this surrender of the franchise to those least qualified to exercise it is the complaint (rarely overtly stated) that the Clintons have had the bad taste to undergo the assassination of their characters in public and have thereby made us its unwilling spectators. This is of course the old ploy of blaming the victim, and Ava Mae Lewis (16) is at least explicit about it. After deploring the “wild accusations” and “rabid hate”, she declares herself “disappointed that the Clintons force us to make this final and public rejection.”

"Look at states that are a deep shade of blue. With the exception of Washington, they mainly voted overwhelmingly for Clinton."

That's not true. Minnesota is a big blue state. So is Illinois. And remember that the primaries are not over yet. I would also like to point out that if you go by the 2004 list, winning just the blue states loses you the election. A Democrat has to pick up some red states to win.

Your argument also has a logical fallacy in it, when you suggest that because Obama lost, say, NY, in a primary against Clinton, that he'd lose to a Republican in a general election. Not so. Either candidate will carry NY by a large margin.

Try to depolarize yourself a little.

Whoops, and the link:

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/

@8 i must say....you are talking out of your ass. these are just "feelings" you have right? or is there data to back up your muck?

http://flickr.com/photos/rakka/2251527504/sizes/l/

& @10 you're a first class asshole. but hey, your crusade against people that use the word "I" or "me" sure is interesting. especially during an election when people deal with issues that matter to them. hearing people speak at the caucuses must have drove you bonkers!

[UPDATE: I just looked at your blog. speaking of being self-centered!! I, me, I, ME! memememememe!]

I realize it is cute and amusing it is when passive Seattlites retreat to their cocoons in the face of boorish behavior, but it isn't THAT cute and amusing. If somebody is being rude in your caucus, stand up and say so.

And retreating to your cocoon so you can get on the Internets and whine that somebody else didn't take care of the rude person for you is beyond sad.

"Sure, we shouldn’t listen to polls, but..."

Oh, so we shouldn't except when, uh, we should? Or maybe it's we shouldn't unless they support your opinion?



In other words, rather than exercising your right to vote like you're supposed to do, you let independents exercise your vote for you because you're trying to figure out who they want rather than figure out who's the best candidate for the job.


I look at you the same way I look at day traders gambling away their life savings because this time, they really think they've got the edge on the system: with naked contempt. You don't know what you're doing and you've made this mistake many times before but failed to learn from it. In 2004, I remember how your type told us how we shouldn't vote our conscience but instead should pick Kerry as he was clearly the more electable nominee, what with his war-hero status and the nation being at war and all. That went really well.


Tell you what, you take your inside baseball BS and form your own party, then you can speculate to your heart's content on how to finally beat the system while you keep losing election after election without impacting the rest of us.


Enjoy your William Jennings Bryant (or if your polls last until November, Jimmy Carter) candidate.

@25,

I happen to think that Obama is the best person for the job and that he's more electable. It is possible to believe both things at once.

both are making the electability argument - clinton has been vetted, and obama has appeal outside the party base. in that regard, they cancel each other out, although one seems more paranoid and fear-based, while the other seems more practical and optimistic.

I remember when Democrats went for "electability" in 2004. We got Kerry.

What we learned is: Democrats aren't good at figuring out who is electable to non-Democrats. Caucuses only magnify this information deficit further.

Cochise, I think if you intend to argue that there isn't sufficient reason to choose between Clinton and Obama, you need to offer reasons why Clinton and Obama are too similar to choose between. Or you need to offer reasons why they each have balanced advantages and defects. My point was that undecided voters fail to offer this evidence, and instead they want everyone to listen to them talk about themselves. This is why undecided voters are called attention whores.

And sure enough, an undecided voter comes along and says next to nothing about Clinton and Obama, but rather wants to get us to hear all about herself. Which was exactly my point.

As far as my blog, I'm not undecided and my blog isn't a blog about how I'm undecided. It's a blog about me. If you read it, it's because you're interested in me. If not, browse on, baby. Browse on.

If I was brain dead, only one thing would bring me back to life...an enormous penis!!!

I'm sorry to hear about all the Obama jerks. Our precinct was extremely polite. I was hoping it was representative and it made me proud of my fellow Obama supporters. One of the first - maybe the first - thing anyone said was that she'd like to hear from a Clinton supporter, but none talked. Or even identified themselves. Or stayed long enough to elect a delagate - they would have had one to our six. If it's true that Clinton supporters are more likely to be women, and women are more likely to be non-confrontational, to the point of not talking, then I can see why Clinton would do worse in caucuses. And if that's the case, I think it's sad for them and for society. Don't be like that!

Elenchos, you’re full of shit. You would have been just as “you’re an attention whore” if I had gone into some big explanation of why I think that the candidates are too similar to choose between. If, for example, I had written a long comment about my view of the Iraq war and why that view leads me to see virtually no difference between the two candidates positions on that matter. It’s impossible to separate out your own opinions and perspective from why you are going to vote the way you are (or why you are undecided). I would think that would be obvious.