bump

8:13EST

Dean is first!

http://www.c-span.org/

RECENT PROGRAMS >>
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) SC Victory Speech (1/26/2008)

Priming-the-pump of positive spin:

The Clinton campaign has never looked as hard into the future -- or the past -- as it did last night. Hillary had already left South Carolina for Tennessee, and Bill was giving a semi-concession speech from Missouri, looking forward to the millions of people who will be voting on Super Tuesday -- since the hundreds of thousands in South Carolina didn't exactly go the way the Clintons had hoped. And he desperately tried to spin Obama's triumph away by telling reporters that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in 1984 and 1988. But however hard the Clintons are trying to look forward to our Super Tuesday future or drag us into the Jesse Jackson past, there are some stunning numbers in the present they have to deal with: Obama got 295,091 votes to Clinton's 141,128 (more than twice as many). He got more votes than John McCain and Mike Huckabee combined (279,723). He won 78% of the black vote, 25% of the white vote, and 52% of the non-black vote under 30. And he was more than a little responsible for the fact that Democratic turnout was twice that of 2004 (532,000 to 280,000). These numbers are pretty hard to run away from.

4.  Good information.  But it would be better if we could spin it from the perspective of the voters.  Twice the number of people picked Obama over Clinton.  That's even better than over fifty percent picking our Carol in a primary of four.

Why Bill Clinton is going back a quarter century is a puzzlement.  Is he, like the conservatives, living in the past?  It's not unusual for people's memories to become more important than their current lives, but Clinton seems a bit young for that. 

Obama just made a very clear statement about backing the DNC Rules in Florida.

Why Bill Clinton is going back a quarter century is a puzzlement.  Is he, like the conservatives, living in the past?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the question answers itself

Bill is a look backwards everytime he walks on a stage and Hillary needs to understand that if she is going to make this a contest about the future (which every winning campaign is). He hurts her chances. (not that I mind that)

Obama did very well taking on George S. and his Clinton  talking points. When the race gets down to Edwards v Obama progressives can declare victory.

Personal comment........earlier a woman caller on CSPAN called in and said she couldnt vote for Obama becaise he was a Muslim and didnt say the pledge.  Now, maybe this person planned saying this or is just plain ignorant but really, what differance dos it make?  In this country it shouldnt matter if he is a Muslim or not and as far as saying the pledge, maybe our leaders should concentrate less on things we routinely did in grade school and started concentrating their collective efforts on real isues this country faces...................

We can all have our diferances, but spreading lies is quite intolerable...................

Obama just made a very clear statement about backing the DNC Rules in Florida.  

+++

Phil -

Indeed (it's called sticking up for Howard and the DNC, rather than for Terry McAuliffe and the old DNC culture of winning at whatever costs. I'm ashamed at both Hillary and Bill wanting to seat MI and FL delegates as is. Play by the rules team Billary.)

I like the pledge;  it is for "justice for all".

Phil -

btw -- the forces of change (Obama - 55%; Edwards - 18%) trumped the forces of status quo (Billary - 27%) last night in SC; that's almost 3/4ths of voters in SC want --

-- change

Pelosi needs to be reminded of those she left out in the stimulus package that are part of that "all".

If South Carolina numbers continue (which I doubt) Obama will wake up Feb 5th the nominee and he can thank John Edwards for that.

a two person race would be a coin flip (inserrt sitka's image)

well, off for now (got to get ready for Sunday church service)

I hope your eye is doing better.

Feb 6th that is

can Edwards put Clinton into third in Georgia?  

thanks rdorgan, I did have a bit of frostbite on my nose and a ear as well, I think maybe at about six years old you learn to come in from the cold, windchills were minus forty or so and I was out four hours (dang cows) , so I plead guilty of infantile behavior and it isn't just when I insult people on the blog.

John Edwards was born in South Carolina.  If he won 1% of the black vote cast in the state's primary, is there reason to suspect that his message aimed at downtrodden and poverty-stricken Americans sounds hollow to people who have seen him up close for a long time and are more familiar with him than most?

only Clinton supporters want John Edwards out of the race right now

Phil wrote "only Clinton supporters want John Edwards out of the race right now"

Meaning all Edwards supporters are closet Clinton voters.  

no Tom it does not, it means that Hillary Clinton gets less delegates in a three way division

Phil wrote "no Tom it does not"

Right.  It means Edwards is the Obama spoiler.

wrong again Tom, it means more states weigh in, and if they choose Obama he will be the nominee

Phil wrote "wrong again Tom."

Well that settles it then.  Edwards supporters will go home after Edwards drops out and not vote for a Democrat.

wrong again Tom

after the prolonged contest with Edwards in the mix the party will unite around Obama after he is able with Edwards help to deny Clinton the nomination

or

progressives have an alternative should Obama has an unforseen difficulty

have

~~~~~~

nice try Tom but three strikes and you're out

5.  OK, I've got a somewhat revised perspective on this Muslim business.  While it's true that the fellows who organized themselves to hijack those planes came from lands where Islam is the dominant religion, they weren't behaving as Muslims when they did what they did.  (Mohamed Atta is actually widely reported to have been a consumer of alcohol and habituee of bars).

The "radical Muslim" as terrorist, whom we're going to "fight over there, so we don't have to fight them here" has a different etiology--i.e. the "black Muslim" movement in the U.S. that has been terrorizing white Americans ever since.  So, when Obama is referred to as a Muslim, the fact that some of his relations are/were followers of that religion is irrelevant.  What's supposed to terrify people is his connection to people like Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0409190261sep19,0,5695696.story 

So, when Bob Johnson made a reference to what Obama was doing in the "hood," he wasn't referring to the drug use, he was dredging up a word that would trigger a fear response.  Why would he do that?  Because he's an uncle tom.

What we need to remember is that the purpose of shared antagonism that's directed at some target group has no basis in fact.  The purpose is to unify those who share in the antagonism and the fear.  The people who are using fear to control don't give a fig for what's to be feared.  And that's why they're not prepared for the target rearing up and revealing itself as something that's not to be feared. 

Clinton is Kerry in this election, the machine candidate with the backing and muscle of the establishment.  Obama is Dean, the insurgent drawing votes from young people, independents, and voters who otherwise suffered from election ennui because the differences between the party's candidates was indistinguishable.  Edwards is Edwards.

 The people who are using fear to control don't give a fig for what's to be feared.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

which is why immigration will be the issue if Romney gets the nomination and radical islam if McCain gets it

and why Huckabee won't get the nomination because he doesn't inspire fear and a Republican can't win unless they gin up fear and hate

there are only so many racists

Phil wrote "nice try Tom but three strikes and you're out"

Yes, except I was watching you swing.  Out of only three possible options, you rejected all three. 

Obama is the grown up Muhammad Ali.  You know, the fellow who recites poetry.  The fellow who leaves his boxing gloves in the ring and refused the draft because he didn't have anything against the VietNamese.

Remember Dean and the rope a dope? 

Morning folks...had a busy day yesterday but wanted to give congrats to a Deaniac who hasn't been blogging much lately. You all remember mataliandy...well yesterday a resolution re: the renewal of FISA which was proposed by John J. McCullough III and she, was adopted by the Vt. State Committee. The complete resolution should be on the Vt. Dem. Party website soon...
www.vtdemocrats.org

A summary of the resolution read...

"The current FISA renewal bill contains clauses that would creat sweeping and dangerous changes to the rule of law in our country.

The bill contains a clause that would give those who knowingly broke the law a "get out of jail free" card. This rewards those who broke the law, while the one company (Quest Communications) that refused to break the law was effectively shut down by the administration.

But worse, because of the way the clause is worded, it not only excuses the wrongdoing of the telecommunications companies who broke the law, it grants immunity from prosecution to all administration officials involved.

Even worse than that, some of the wording makes it so that, if an administration official ever makes certain statements while asking someone to do something illegal, that action becomes instantly legal, regardless of the law. As a result, law would have no meaning for any administration if the immunity portion of the FISA law is passed.

We ask our Senators to do all they can to prevent the immunity clause to pass, by any and all means at their disposal, including filibuster.".

I'll be contacting me elected ones as well and urge others to do the same.

Wow, me post that should have been 33 got bumped all the way back to 10.
10:38 a.m. EST

I see where I rate...lol
Got stuff to do anyway...
Congrats to the Obama supporters here...he gave a great speech yesterday.
bbl

From Bob Herbert's column yesterday in the NYT:

Still, it’s legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.

It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects — on their party and the nation — of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.

What kind of people are the Clintons? What role will Bill Clinton play in a new Clinton White House? Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation’s need for healing and unifying?

These are questions that need to be answered. Stay tuned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html?ei=5087&em=&en=84b2cf6bda22fa2c&ex=1201582800&pagewanted=print

Good morning!!!

My husband was reading the vote totals from South Carolina from both the Democratic primary as well as the Republican. He said *Hillary can't beat McCain - he got more votes than she did in SC*. Obama received more votes than McCain and Huck combined. Just anecdotal.

only three possible options,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

nice try Tom but since 50% don't vote and could be attracted by Obama or Edwards it is not a zero sum game

the options are much broader than your three straw men

29.  Which is why the voters have to define the issues.  The SC voters who voted for Obama said it is the economy.  Voters vote on the basis of what matters to them.

Edwards is right about the corporations, but his brush is too broad.  It's not all corporations.  It's the monopolists.  It's the people who spout "free markets" and "free trade" but actually aim to create monopolies--to destroy the competition by ridding themselves of the rules of fair play.

Perhaps we should reframe "rule of law" as "rules of fair play." 

Phil wrote "the options are much broader than your three straw men."

Name them.

his brush is too broad

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course John Edwards understands that, but it is hard to create a stump speech out of the grey and blurred distinctions between the good Corps. and the bad ones, so he needs to go back to being the peoples advocate which everyone understands now that they know where he is coming from against the power cabal in Washington.

Monica Smith
Sun, 01/27/08

Obama is the grown up Muhammad Ali.  You know, the fellow who recites poetry.  The fellow who leaves his boxing gloves in the ring and refused the draft because he didn't have anything against the VietNamese.

Monica, I think you are selling both Ali and Obama short.  Ali's stance took a lot of courage and it cost him a lot.  Yes he did make the comment that 'he didn't have anything against the Viet Namese,' but he put a lot of thought into taking what was then an unpopular stand.

Obama has little in common with Ali.  Obama is not just an inspirational speaker, but he is an inspirational leader. 

Come to think of it, history has served Ali well.  You still remember 'rope a dope,' don't you.  And come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.  Certainly Hillary is smarting today. ;-)

I think it may be impossible to determine just who Edwards votes would be going to if he were to drop out. In the past I have always believed most of them would be Obama votes than he would garner.

But given the majority of males of all races who supported Obama, it may be that many men are just not ready for a woman as president.

Who knows? Perhaps the answer is that the votes would be evenly split.

The word last night from MSNBC was that Clinton had a meeting, at HER request, with JE in her own green room in SC after a debate. What was she offering John?? We don't know that she offered anything at all.

Also, the word was that JE's reps had contacted Obama's campaign and they answered that they were making any deals at this time. But who knows if even those bits of pundit info are true.

I do feel strongly that if Obama wins, he will win in November and there will be a place for Edwards in his cabinet if he wants it. With Clinton  you don't get eggroll.

Somehow my response to Monica's post number 35 has found its way to number 18.  It doesn't really make any sense to respond to a post that hasn't been read yet.

HRQ where are you?

Morning Folks,

Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama was very moving.  

It seems that for so long, we've been nagged, cajoled, haranged to be fearful, to be suspicious, to be angy and cynical.  I think many many Americans are tired of living in our reptilian brains where fear, anger, and greed have play.  Enough already, and it doesn't take specific policy issues to get us out of that mode.  It takes the intangible, that leader or leaders who say, forget that, we can do better and we will.

If any people were to be optimistic, it is we Americans whose immigrant ancestors left intractable and authoritarian situations and problems.  I can't imagine ironing clothes for 12 hours a day as my husband's Polish grandmother did when she came to this country, nor to become a laborer when you were trained as a teacher or lawyer.  That indomitable will to succeed, to live, to make a new life is part of us and that history makes us tend toward optimism.

Probably that's why the message of Reagan appealed to so many, and with that message, he was able to undo the very protections and opportunities that  were the basis of that optimism.  The deregulation, the corporate free-for-all, the denial of support for those major causes that would have made us a better society fooled so many.

Obama 's optimism and Edwards' are based in real life experiences and if they can combine that optimism and persuade the American people that they are trust worthy leaders, we have a chance to be the just society we long to be, at least Progressives long to be.  

As humans we are programmed to need leaders, probably that occurred way back in the hunter gathering days when someone developed the strategy and was able to convince the others to follow and to be loyal.  To recognize that is merely common sense, and yes, we want our leaders to be emblems of our best selves, people we admire and trust.

I worry that the Clintons will stop at nothing to realize their ambitions, and that may well be a replay of the convention in Chicago that elected Hubert Humphrey who was so associated with the Vitenam War that he didn't have much of a chance since his own party disdained him.

Let's hope we can come together for a vision of the good society that has in our generation given us such good lives.  Now, let's pass on that goal for the next generations and call on them for their talents, experiences, ideas, and commitment. 

42.

Also, the word was that JE's reps had contacted Obama's campaign and they answered that they were making any deals at this time  ===== were NOT making any deals.

Time for a second cup of java.

Phil,

Stay warm, use a face mask like the robbers do. Please keep the cows warm too.

bbl

Obama is the grown up Muhammad Ali.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama still has some growing to do to reach Muhammed Ali's world wide stature as one of the most loved men in the world but he could conceivably get there some day.

and you are right he needs to reach into his inner poetry, and not let Clinton's drag him down to street fighter Mike Tyson

I doubt Edwards wants a Cabinet job but he could sure be a capable Secretary in several Departments. The reason I back him is who he would appoint as Attorney General and Assistant positions in the Justice Department, among others.

#38, Hi Joan,

Thanks for the Bob Herbert quotes.  Yes, exactly.  I've wondered that.  I've wondered at the ambition that discards people, ideas, and the country as a whole.  That Hillary Clinton voted for the flag burning resolution, the Kyle/Lieberman resolutions, etc., etc. where is her integrity, where is her focus?  I think it's on power, status, and wealth.  I don't see any indication that people, the good of the whole, recognizing that those who disagree with you have valid perspectives as well. I don't see the kind of mind and thinking that has breadth and depth.  

Asked if the scuttlebutt is true that Sen. Ted Kennedy will follow the example of his niece by endorsing him, Obama fails to confirm or deny it, instead asking the Senator to speak on his own behalf at the time he thinks is appropriate.

35.  Yes, I've saved that column on Hannah.

I'm hoping that Obama realizes that the antagonism isn't about him; that the Clintons are merely flailing to achieve social cohesion, as they are used to doing, without actually delivering anything of value.  The whole bunch of them (the Bushes and the Clintons and the Stephens and the Rockefellers) are only interested in promoting their power-grubbing agenda.  Talk about slumlords.  What are Winthrop and Jay but rich boys who moved into Arkansas and West Virginia to play lord of the manor. 

You'll remember that Jay was all keen on having secrets made public until he got to be in charge of them. 

Edwards is Edwards.  <<<<<<<<<<<

well, you got one out of three right, Tom.  Get some coffee?;)

Morning folks. 

Phil wrote "it is hard to create a stump speech out of the grey and blurred distinctions between the good Corps. and the bad ones, . . ."

In addition, it is difficult for Edwards to fashion a campaign message of helping to defend the rights of the economically disadvantaged that more then 1% of blacks in his home state find very authentic or credible.

Weird jumping around again on the blog.  It is hard to have a conversation, a little like the past, present, and future all skewed so we are traveling back and forth in time and losing the linear coherence we need. 

Anyway, good morning Folks.  As always, It's good to have this disalogue. 

#31, disalogue, wow, maybe that describes the dialogue here sometimes. 

Jay, btw, is up for de-selection this year.

Maybe we could get puddle to step forward. 

Resounding victory for Obama, and lots of people climbing on the bandwagon.

No sign of the "Bradley Effect" either--that's good.

I posted at 11:11 am, and it was backed all the way up to 35.

I suspect a DLC conspiracy againsts progressives!

11:13am

Monica you are just focusing on the one slice of power,money, and intertwined Corporate interests that the Bushes and Clintons share but there are many many more webs involving many more congresscritters unique to their district like Landrieu and oil, or Indian casino lisences and Abramoff, or weapons manufacturers and dozens of others, or health care and those many they have bought and paid for.

that is where I think John Edwards of all the candidates of both parties sees the big picture, that the battlelines in Washington that look partisan are in fact the people fighting back with the many great representatives of the people in our Party standing and fighting

"uniting" to me looks like Pelosi's version of the stimulus package

which is why Edwards in the race helps Obama clarify what he means which I think is "lifting up together"

and makes victory in November that much easier because the Corporate wing of the party gets exposed for the one third that it is 

Well, it's not a matter of being disadvantaged.  It's a matter of being robbed.  The problem is clearly identifying who the robbers are and how you're going to get back what was took.

Obama started out with a similar litany of problems that need to be addressed but he didn't stick with it like Edwards has.  And Edwards' knight-in-shining-armour shtick is not entirely convincing.   

John Edwards was born in South Carolina.  If he won 1% of the black vote cast in the state's primary, is there reason to suspect that his message aimed at downtrodden and poverty-stricken Americans sounds hollow to people who have seen him up close for a long time and are more familiar with him than most?  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

No.  You'd need to do extensive exit polling but your hypothesis has little basis, especially in that Obama is an AA candidate and SC has a large AA population and your hypothesis ignores this.

Folks, I think we need to be able to recognize that for AA's having a viable candidate for the presidency is HUGE...HUGE.  He is going to win that sector.  Period.

We also need to acknowledge that saying that isn't to trivialize Barack Obama. Personally, I thought he comported himself very well in the last debates and Hillary frankly did not.  Her husband on the stump is a bad idea, imo.  She should have kept him at fundraising.  He should stop attack dog mode now, though my guess is that it's too late.

 Should Obama win our primary the Repubs will indeed zero in on his ethnicity...playing upon racism and fears about "black men".  That's how they roll.

Even after last nights victorey by Obaama, isnt Hillary still in the leade in total denegrates? 

Edwards needs to make himself "servant-leader" of his cause if he wants to stage a comeback.

and Obama could still become a rock star instead of future President, so the voters need to create the environment for a substantial discussion of the America we want to become

Phil, Tom.....I don't think there is any real DATA to support either of your hypotheses.  We don't know what a majority of Edwards supporters will do.  Me?  I'm dancing with the one that brung me...in the primary.

I'll support the winner of the Dem primary as will most, I believe.  Belief being different that data;)

Since all we're doing is tossing out hypotheses, I also believe that most folks vote their heart vs. a strategic vote.  Edwards has a core of solid supporters.  They'll support him as long as he is on their primary ballot.  Some may split off...vote Obama or Hillary C. 

59.  Yup, I've long held that while the Republicans were into rule OF the people and the Democrats were into doing FOR the people, neither was keen to recognize that rule is BY the people.

Edwards is still largely in the what he can do FOR the people mode and people realize that the task is just too big.  Not to mention that health care proposals seem both unrealistic and unsatisfying (Kucinich's is only unrealistic).

In any case, those of us who have the primary behind us, need to start focusing on the Congress.  Getting rid of Sununu in NH should be fairly easy.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership

Our BH person referrs to these as "terrifying" numbers:

Voter Turnout by Party (rough numbers):
Iowa:     220,000(D)     115,000(R)
New Hampshire:     288,000(D)     239,000(R)
Nevada:     115,800(D)     44,300(R)
South Carolina:     530,322 (D)     446,000 (R)

Total Democratic Voter Turnout:     1,154,122
Total Republican Voter Turnout:     844,300

cC wrote "well, you got one out of three right, Tom" and " your hypothesis has little basis, especially in that Obama is an AA candidate and SC has a large AA population and your hypothesis ignores this."

That's three points I made with which you disagree, but none you refute.  I'd be interested in some explanation regarding how what I've posited is, in your mind, incorrect.  It would give your disagreement the potential benefit of some validity.

potential benefit of some validity. LOL

 I also believe that most folks vote their heart vs. a strategic vote. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is the only way that the Party and its nominee represent the people. and the more states that get to have their vote matter the better

bbl

None of your posits make any real sense.  You posit three things.  None of which have any basis in fact and declare that one of those three MUST be true.  Nothing logical about your challenge, there tom.  

It is entirely possible (and even likely, imo) that you are incorrect in all three of your assumptions. 

There is clearly a LOGIC problem with, "hey I'm saying three things and one of them gets to be true", lol.  Nope.  Not the way it works. 

If I feel like taking them apart one-by-one, Tom I'll do so.  Haven't decided yet. I've little time to blog this am.  I'll let ya know:) 

I think it may be impossible to determine just who Edwards votes would be going to if he were to drop out.<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Yes,  Joan.  We'd. won't know unless polling is done to tease this out.  I've spent a good bit over at JRE's blog.  These are all DEMS, for sure.  They know what the stakes are and are unlikely to "sit out" this election should he lose.  mho.

Analysis of the South Carolina vote from David Paul Kuhn in the Politico helps further suggest why Edwards is siphoning votes from Obama in the early state contests:

"Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, ended up winning 44 percent of white men, the first time he won this bloc during the 2008 primaries.

"Clinton has lost Democratic white men in three of the first four contests.

"Part of Obama’s strength has been that he won Democratic white men twice. In the coming Feb. 5 contests, when more than 20 states will vote, retaking this white male bloc will be vital for Obama."

In other words, Obama is more likely than Clinton to attract the votes of Democratic white males that Edwards is drawing in the South.

Monica wrote "potential benefit of some validity. LOL"

You like that one, eh?

Edwards needs to make himself "servant-leader" of his cause if he wants to stage a comeback.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I'm not sure what to think about that definition but as far as a comeback goes....the curtain is closing on that window.  After Super Tuesday it's too late for a comeback. 

and Obama could still become a rock star instead of future President, so the voters need to create the environment for a substantial discussion of the America we want to become<<<<

Well, he's already somewhat of a rock star and he may well be our next president.

Tom and Phil.....go get some coffee.

A Kossack has taken the time to look into the Democratic primaries (thus far) popular vote count.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1...

Obama's way ahead...

http://www.americablog.com/2008/01/polls-show-clinton-support-plummeted.html

Fascinating poll date. Look at what happened to support for Clinton, Obama and Edwards over the past year, and then specifically the past few months.

The polls start in Jan 2007 or so and continue up until the past few days. Note how from January until the end of November, Hillary went steadily up from 32% in the polls to 40%.

At the same time, Obama went steadily up from around 20% to 28%.

And Edwards just plummeted from 25% to almost nothing. So basically, Clinton and Obama saw steady growth in their support throughout 2007.

Then at the end of November, early December, something happened. It's not clear what, but Hillary's support dropped from 40% to 29% over 6 weeks.

At the same time, Obama's support skyrocketed from 28% to 43%. And Edwards saw an increase as well, going from 1% or 2% to the mid-teens.

This suggests that not only were Hillary supporters going to Obama and Edwards (but more to Obama), but it also suggests that the sudden change in the polls wasn't simply due to something Obama did right.

Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen such a large rise in Edwards' support as well. It looks as though people left Hillary and chose whoever they could who wasn't Hillary. That suggests that they may have left Hillary because of something Hillary did. (Or her husband did.)

I'd be curious to check the news stories and see just what happened at the end of November, early December.

One possibility is that Obama suddenly was seen as "viable." Maybe that played a role (though I suspect it played more of a role post his Iowa victory), but that doesn't explain why Edwards' support starting rising at the same time. It's not like Edwards suddenly became viable as well at the end of November, or any time since. It looks like something happened that ticked people off against Hillary, then after a week or so they decided to move to Obama instead.

by John Aravosis at America Blog.  (More at the link...good stuff...also a chart that I didn't try to bring here.  Didn't think it would render properly)

poll date s/be poll data.

cC wrote "Tom and Phil.....go get some coffee."

Thanks.  I'm on my fourth cup.  Go get a rationale for your antitheses.

cC wrote "'hey I'm saying three things and one of them gets to be true', lol.  Nope.  Not the way it works."

Ha ha.  Glad everyone is in a good mood.  Let me ask you what I asked Phil, since he didn't respond: What would the fourth possible option be?

I provided a rationale for my antithesis, Tom.

It is logically possible (and likely, imo) that all three of your hypotheses are false.  You posit them claiming that one must be true.  Logical fallacy.  There is no particular correlation among your arguments therefore no logical necessity that one must be true.

You set up the 3 loose arguments then lazily decided to proclaim that one must be true.  You're the one that needs to adjust arguments.  Yours are sloppy...and that is being kind. 

Well, drink less coffe, then?  You're not making much sense this am.  Just noise, mostly. 

I provided some polling data.  Enjoy it:) 

Mike wrote "Even after last nights victorey by Obaama, isnt Hillary still in the leade in total denegrates?"

Yes, by virtue of the superdelegate vote count, but those are not committed.

cC wrote "It is logically possible (and likely, imo) that all three of your hypotheses are false.  You posit them claiming that one must be true.  Logical fallacy."

Phil suggested that only Clinton supporters would want Edwards out of the race.  I wondered why that would be.  The implication is that  1)  Edwards supporters would tend to favor Clinton if Edwards dropped out.  Phil rejected that, leading to the assumption that 2) Edwards supporters would tend to favor Obama if Edwards dropped out, a clear refutation of Phil's logic.  Phil claimed that wasn't the case.  This led to the third possible option that 3) Edwards supporters wouldn't tend to even vote for Clinton or Obama if Edwards dropped out, a relatively stupid theory, but other possiblities had grown thin at that point.  Phil said that was "strike three."

What is the fourth option?

12:10pm

Testing to see if my posts are still being put back 20

What would the fourth possible option be?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well Tom.................usually an enema as  last resort.

In addition, it is difficult for Edwards to fashion a campaign message of helping to defend the rights of the economically disadvantaged that more then 1% of blacks in his home state find very authentic or credible.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

It is also entirely possible that JRE just is being heard/noticed/listened to.

Historic firsts are trumping all else is quite possible and likely, imo. 

Mike wrote "Well Tom.................usually an enema as  last resort."

Well it is an option.  Therefore, either 1) Phil is right and most Edwards supporters would opt for Clinton as their second choice; 2) Phil is wrong and most Edwards supporters would opt for Obama as their second choice; 3) Phil is wrong and Edwards supporters would divide evenly for Clinton and Obama as a second choice; or 4)  an enema.

12:21 pm

cC wrote "Some Edwards supporters will support HC in the event JRE drops out; some will support BO."

You'll notice that I suggested that, but it fails to support Phil's analysis.

12:22pm

I am posting mostly blanks to demonstrate the fact that the sequencing is totally screwed up

12:23pm

Clinton is Kerry in this election, the machine candidate with the backing and muscle of the establishment.  Obama is Dean, the insurgent drawing votes from young people, independents, and voters who otherwise suffered from election ennui because the differences between the party's candidates was indistinguishable.  Edwards is Edwards.  <<<<<<<<<

You got one right:  Edwards is Edwards. 

12:24 pm and still being bumped to the rear

Phil suggested that only Clinton supporters would want Edwards out of the race.  I wondered why that would be.  The implication is that  1)  Edwards supporters would tend to favor Clinton if Edwards dropped out.  Phil rejected that, leading to the assumption that 2) Edwards supporters would tend to favor Obama if Edwards dropped out, a clear refutation of Phil's logic.  Phil claimed that wasn't the case.  This led to the third possible option that 3) Edwards supporters wouldn't tend to even vote for Clinton or Obama if Edwards dropped out, a relatively stupid theory, but other possiblities had grown thin at that point.  Phil said that was "strike three."<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Well, thanks for finally setting up an argument with logical correlation.  You had not done that up till now.  Rather, you provided odd reasons for JRE's losses in SC.  None of which were correlated, logical or provable and then demanded that one of them be right.

Not the way it works. 

oh, mary vb.  Thanks for that KOS link.  Going there now.

brb. 

Just sent the folowing to the rocket scientists at tech support

 Please fix the sequencing of the blog so that posts are in the order that they are received.

The absence of a time-stamp is annoying, but getting pushed back between 10 and 20 posts is destructive to the dialogue that is the main purpose of the blog.

12:30pm

cC wrote "It is also entirely possible that JRE just is being heard/noticed/listened to."

I'll grant you it's possible, just unlikely in the extreme.  He was a senator from the neighboring state between 1998 and 2004.  He ran for president in 2004, became the vice presidential nominee, and has been running for president again since that race ended. 

That's a six year senate record and an estimated five to eight years of campaigning on this message, depending on how consistent you find that he's been in presenting it.  Undoubtedly, some black voters in South Carolina had an opportunity for Edwards message to sink in only recently.  Nevertheless, voting statistics would show that they rejected it as unpersuasive to the same degree that those who are familiar with it and him did.

Tom Bearse
Sun, 01/27/08
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well I dont wnt to get into hypertheticals, but I think we know whats at stake..............and IF Mccain gets in.........the Republicans must be stopped.

12:32 pm

Good morning er afternoon Blorgie,

I watched some CSPAN then Obama on George S and the roundtable on Russert then Chris Matthews Sunday show. It struck me how last night changed the 'narrative' b/c Chris Matthews was all about Hillary and Bill and obviously taped before the results of SC were known. The other shows were all about Obama which I enjoyed as an Obama fan. Finally some were talking about how Bill may have hurt Hill, and more importantly, how she needed him to come help her when the going got rough. I had one thought watching Obama on George S. Now this is almost Machiavellian, or maybe just too smart by half, but just maybe, Obama made the Reagan comment, saying Reagan changed the 'outlook' more than Clinton, in order to bring out the attack dog in Clinton, in order to make Hill and Bill look sleazy and politicians of destruction, and THIS is what the South Carolinians voted on yesterday when it came down to it. In other words maybe the Reagan comment hurt Bill's ego and that's what brought out his inner 'attack dog.' And maybe just maybe it was planned.

Also, Monica I think I get what you are saying about Ali and Obama. I remember 'Black Muslims' in 'the day' and we were frightened of them. In fact, nowadays I'm always a little surprised when the textbooks treat Malcolm X as a hero - I remember him as scary -- and also I was reading about Angela Davis the other day. I remember her as scary as well. Turns out she's a full professor in California I think, highly respected. I had her confused with someone that got killed in a shootout. My point is that it's Black Muslims that we feared then and when we hear Muslim today that is a kneejerk reptilian response that does come up.

This ought to be about 87. and it's 12:32 PM ET on Sunday.

BREAKING: Ted Kennedy has endorsed Obama.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1...

9:32 PST

Even back in my old Republican days I was a Kennedy enthusiast. This is awesome.

cC wrote "You had not done that up till now."

I acknowledge that the blog is a little hard to follow, but I am obliged to tell you that that's exactly what I did.  In the last instance, however, I summarized the previous three posts in one for your convenience, and was happy to do so.

Just sent the folowing to the rocket scientists at tech support

 Please fix the sequencing of the blog so that posts are in the order that they are received.

The absence of a time-stamp is annoying, but getting pushed back between 10 and 20 posts is destructive to the dialogue that is the main purpose of the blog.

12:30pm<<<<<<<<<

HJ, thanks for doing that.  It is now entirely impossible to follow what's being said here. 

FIX THE BLOG SEQUENCING. 

mary vb great news about Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama - thanks. 12:38 PM ET.

CNN will be adding Kennedy's statement shortly.

Confirmed by Wolf Blitzer.

John, you seem a little quiet this afternoon.

I acknowledge that the blog is a little hard to follow, but I am obliged to tell you that that's exactly what I did.  In the last instance, however, I summarized the previous three posts in one for your convenience, and was happy to do so.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

No, that's not what you did.  You stripped your arguments of their illogical, lacking of factual basis, arguments behind the arguments.  Then you presented your three possibilities.

Nuff said on that one.  Moving on: 

Many voters don't even know the names of their current representatives, Tom...much less the records of former reps.  Again, you make declarations and call them truth....they are not provable....then ask for someone to argue against them. 

The point is that we can go on here tossing out possibilities for Edwards' loss or we can wait for the polling data which will, imo, defy your hypotheses.

But hey, blather on;)

I've got to go get firewood.

See you all soon. 

Good luck to Mike in Ohio in your quest for a House seat. We need all the good Dems we can get there.

The AP finds that Obama voters are decidedly more aggrieved than Hillary ones are. Not only that, but large percentages of Hillary voters say she attacked him unfairly:

After the contentious Democratic debate Monday night, three in four Obama voters said Clinton had attacked Obama unfairly and slightly fewer than half accused their own candidate of attacking Clinton unfairly. Two-thirds of Clinton voters said Obama attacked her unfairly and nearly as many said she attacked him unfairly.

Meanwhile, the AP gives us this rather inconclusive data about Bill's impact on the race:

Nearly six in 10 of those voting said former President Clinton's campaigning in the state was an important factor for them, including a quarter who called it very important.

Right, Bill's campaigning was important in shaping voter attitudes, but how exactly? Did it help Hillary or hurt her? Hopefully we'll get a bit more data on this later.

Talk about putting up a bat!!

Obama Donations Pouring in at $500,000 Per Hour After SC Primary

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/26/a_quick_fundraising_spike_onli.html 

cC wrote "No, that's not what you did.  You stripped your arguments of their illogical, lacking of factual basis, arguments behind the arguments.  Then you presented your three possibilities;" and "Many voters don't even know the names of their current representatives, Tom...much less the records of former reps.  Again, you make declarations and call them truth....they are not provable....then ask for someone to argue against them."

Okay.  Have it your way.  I supose the possibility exists that some voters registered their vote with no idea of who the candidates really are and what positions they espouse.

At this point, I can't tell what it is we're discussing or why, but I'll stand on whay I've said and wait for someone to actually address it instead of free composing a formless critique.

John, you seem a little quiet this afternoon.  

 I'd love to become part of the conversation, but see no point when my posts are put behind 10 to 20 earlier ones.

12:52 pm

John wrote "I'd love to become part of the conversation, but see no point when my posts are put behind 10 to 20 earlier ones."

It is somewhat challenging with the puzzle format, but I think you're up to it, regardless.

"I supose the possibility exists that some voters registered their vote with no idea of who the candidates really are and what positions they espouse."<<<<<<<<<<

This is indeed entirely possible, Tom.  Many people are caught up in an historic moment...FIRSTS...be it the first viable black or woman candidate.  For many "this" is enough.

There will be also be those who say, my candidate has no chance (the electibility argument) so I'll vote for IS electible.  Polling told us that many folks did not vote Dean, instead voted Kerry for this very reason.

You cherry-pick the possibilities that you want or like and then attempt to deride other possibilities with arguments that don't hold much water.  You assume a rational, critical-thinking skill set  upon most Americans.  that's your first mistake, imo.

Jumbling up my comments, as you did in that post, is also dishonest, Tom. I clearly addressed two different comments from you.  If you're going to quote then quote honestly.  That's the second time you've done this....I let the first one go.

Now, off to get my firewood:)  For real! 

110.

Many voters don't even know the names of their current representatives,

cC

That may be true and the thought of it always drives my crazy.

But more recently I have been finding that, though they may not know all the details because they work two jobs, watch little TV or don't even own on or a computer, many more than are beginning to grasp the political situation in America as a whole -- details be darned.

They may be recognizing that their involvement, particularly the younger voters, is more crucial to their own lives than they had thought. While politics may have been something foreign to them in past years, it certainly is gaining in popularity among the young. Iraq, the economy, college tuition, huge debt they will be expected to pay, etc. are key issues for them. All of that can't be good news for Republicans.

When the race gets down to Edwards v Obama progressives can declare victory. 

Believe it or not, I'm starting to feel sorry for the dwindling band of harcore Edwardians. They're like poor children in a christmas tale who just KNOW Santa will bring that sled their parents can't afford. 

Click on the "Contact" button above-top, check Technical Support Blog, and send them a message to fix this crazy blog.

I want to flag this diary on KOS. It's talking about how new USDA labels for 'naturally raised' address not one whit the humane care of animals up to and including slaughter. Just means no antibiotics and such. Here's a quote:

quote
The USDA proposed a "naturally raised" label that doesn't provide for animal welfare or environmental stewardship at all. The label simply means "no hormones, antibiotics, or animal byproducts." Is that what the word natural means to most people? Who knows.
unquote

Please go read the KOS diary, then go to the link he provides and leave a comment for the UDSA that 'naturally raised' should include standards for humane treatment. THE DEADLINE IS TOMORROW FOR COMMENTS.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/27/...

cC wrote "Jumbling up my comments, as you did in that post, is also dishonest, Tom. I clearly addressed two different comments from you.  If you're going to quote then quote honestly.  That's the second time you've done this....I let the first one go."

You're right.  I realize that I don't know what it is we're discussing, and I can't sort it out after this lengthy an exchange.  If it interests you, start over and copy the relevant part of whatever post it is you're addressing so I can appropriately respond.

To summarize, I disputed Phil's theory that Edwards helps Obama by staying in this race, I questioned whether blacks find Edwards' message regarding the poor credible, and I analogized Clinton to Kerry and Obama to Dean from last cycle to this one.

I'd like to blame this blog for my typos as well as the other problems but I guess Jim Dean won't buy that.

What's wrong with the blog is with the programming. When the bloggie was down last weekend, it may have corrupted the lines that tell the blog to sort by time instead of randomly. But the time doesn't work either so I'd say they need to call in the big guns.

There is a new thread.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23661...

The absence of a time-stamp is annoying, but getting pushed back between 10 and 20 posts is destructive to the dialogue that is the main purpose of the blog.

Right you are Huron John.  I tried to respond to one of Monica's posts upthread and it wound up 20 posts ahead of hers.  Very annoying.  And obfuscating dialogue DOES defeat the purpose of this blog...especially now that the political races are really heating up.

Off to work in a few minutes...or maybe I left for work a few minutes ago.  Who knows with this blog?

http://blogforamerica.com/view/23661#comments

I don't remember Ted Kennedy endorsing Howard.

I appreciate Ted when he votes progressive, but he is DLC all the way. I would have thought he would endorse Hillary, but lately since she's coming down in the nat;l polls, the word is go with Obama. He would never endorse Edwards, because Edwards is sounding like someone the Party can't depend on. Gotta keep everybody in line, and if not, theyll take them down like Howard. They would do it to Edwards if he gained traction. They aren't worried about Obama. I think they should be for the General, but it has been said many times, that the Party establishment would rather lose an election than their power base.

How boringly repetitious this election is. Time to enter Dean and Gore at the convention.