Jump to content

Clinton v. Obama

Guest Map Boy
Guest Map Boy
in Ohio Politics

Featured Replies

Yeah but its 4 to 1 on here?  And most of us on here are white, but I guess not older women. 

Which as Ive stated I was shocked about in the elections thread (the overwhelming unquestionable support for Obama with little reason given behind it) as well as surprised that I had not seen dialogue on here comparing things like urban policy or answers to Frank Jacksons letter....  I did look here for convincing of why I should support Obama, but all I found was Hillary bashing and little substance (which I guess does somewhat compare with the campaign as well as the mainstream public (which I didn't think were the people on here)

 

You keep harping on this as though you're owed an explanation.

 

I thought I'd give you some reading material.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/thinking.pdf

 

 

  • Replies 206
  • Views 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Obama has done much better with people with higher educations than Clinton.  Just another reason to improve the schools in Ohio.

Last night's results have confirmed what I was afraid of... Urban Ohio members are not a representative sample of the Ohio population.  I wonder how close we are to a representative sample of the urban Ohio population?

Of course. Make a website and call it RuralOhio and I guarantee that it would be dead on. Not to knock on rural areas, but it really goes to show that farmers and small town folk do not really care what happens in the big cities. This is why Bush won Ohio the past 2 elections. Same thing with Texas. Check out the county by county vote breakdowns,

 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#OH

 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX

 

Or they're a little misinformed :-o (60 Mins Video):

 

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=6775293&ch=4227541&src=news

 

The link doesn't always play the correct clip (Select the video "Gender and Race"):

 

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/146/battleground_ohio

^Was that the "I heard Obama was a muslim" clip?  That whole phenomenon is really depressing for so many reasons.

Yeah but its 4 to 1 on here?  And most of us on here are white, but I guess not older women. 

Which as Ive stated I was shocked about in the elections thread (the overwhelming unquestionable support for Obama with little reason given behind it) as well as surprised that I had not seen dialogue on here comparing things like urban policy or answers to Frank Jacksons letter....  I did look here for convincing of why I should support Obama, but all I found was Hillary bashing and little substance (which I guess does somewhat compare with the campaign as well as the mainstream public (which I didn't think were the people on here)

 

You keep harping on this as though you're owed an explanation.

 

Perhaps I do feel that way..   Since Ive come to trust this board to the extent that I think the people on here share the same passions as me, I guess I did expect to see more dialogue to help me understand this Obama phenomenon that I have been trying to understand.  Given I can come on here and get every detail to why a restaurant is good or not, but haven't found the same of something that could have such a big impact on things that people on here are so passionate about.  Clearly I need to get over this, and realize I'm not going to find a magical answer, and come to my own conclusions about this.       

 

I haven't questioned Obama's intelligence, although I think it is more that he is a good speaker and that people are so hungry for change given the last 7 years, but I haven't felt that people have fairly looked at the candidates or the issues, or who may be more capable of carrying out actual needed change.       

   

FWIW willyboy, I have a good friend who is supporting Obama and when we talked, he couldn't articulate any concrete reasons for supporting him either.  Just the sort of broad "feelings" people talk about.  "bringing people together" etc, parroting the rhetoric that's in all the ads. 

 

I also think he over-saturated Ohio to the point of annoyance.  Driving home from the park and ride Monday I switched to 5 different radio stations IN A ROW trying to find music and every one was an Obama ad.  It was nearly constant on the TV as well. 

Here's an interesting comment from someone on another forum about Hillary: "We all know her support consists of little more than air-headed sisterhood, prejudiced hispanics, and stupid laboring grunts."

 

This wasn't a comment from some right-wing bigot, it was a comment made by a self-professed liberal and Democrat of African-American descent. The last time I checked - misogyny = homophobia = racism = sexism = bigotry = classism. I have to say I just don't hear that kind of appalling horsesh!t from the Hillary camp.

clevelandskyscrapers.com
Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram

Here's an interesting comment from someone on another forum about Hillary: "We all know her support consists of little more than air-headed sisterhood, prejudiced hispanics, and stupid laboring grunts."

 

This wasn't a comment from some right-wing bigot, it was a comment made by a self-professed liberal and Democrat of African-American descent. The last time I checked - misogyny = homophobia = racism = sexism = bigotry = classism. I have to say I just don't hear that kind of appalling horsesh!t from the Hillary camp.

 

Who said that? Call the SOB out!

^I'm an Obama supporter and you'll never hear that out of me.

 

FWIW willyboy, I have a good friend who is supporting Obama and when we talked, he couldn't articulate any concrete reasons for supporting him either.

 

For one, I respect that he is the only candidate talking about the importance of public transportation, as well as the importance of revitalizing urban cores.

 

I feel the same way about information on Hillary.  It seems as though Hillary supporters spend so much time bashing Obama, that I'm not really even sure what she stands for or why I should like her.

^I'm an Obama supporter and you'll never hear that out of me.

 

FWIW willyboy, I have a good friend who is supporting Obama and when we talked, he couldn't articulate any concrete reasons for supporting him either.

 

For one, I respect that he is the only candidate talking about the importance of public transportation, as well as the importance of revitalizing urban cores.

 

I feel the same way about information on Hillary.  It seems as though Hillary supporters spend so much time bashing Obama, that I'm not really even sure what she stands for or why I should like her.

 

It's interesting, isn't it?  Thanks for your comments, this is the first I've heard with specifics.  I don't bash Obama at all, never have.  I also don't talk about Hillary in terms of what she is or isn't or does or doesn't as compared to Barack.  Every Obama supporter I know uses Hillary as a yardstick and then points out the numerous ways he isn't like her as their reasons for supporting him.  Not being Hillary in 99 ways still isn't a reason to vote for someone for President IMO.

 

Who said that? Call the SOB out!

 

Knowing what you know about me, do you think I even hesitated for a second to call them out? And names aren't necessary :-)

 

jam40jeff - in no way am I suggesting *all* Obama supporters are making remarks like that, but I am DEFINITELY seeing blatantly misogynist and racist comments from "liberals", "Democrats", "minorities", aka people who should know better.

clevelandskyscrapers.com
Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram

I think Obama could be on a slippery slope if he attacks Hillary too much. So many female voters are watching him closely and it would not take much for them to see any attack as sexist whether is was or not.  Now would be a good time for him to show his softer feminine side. Truthfully IMO she has more of an alpha male temperament (and all the negatives that come with it)  than he does. I think he would interact in a more tactful and diplomatic manner with colleagues and the international community than Hillary (AKA Ms. sarcastric eye roller) and certainly McCain (AKA Mr. Angry). That is one of my many reason for supporting him

I am DEFINITELY seeing blatantly misogynist and racist comments from "liberals", "Democrats", "minorities", aka people who should know better.

 

Agreed, I have heard them from both Obama and Clinton supporters.  I think everyone should know better, but unfortunately you'll still get ignorance from almost any subset of the population from time to time.  I agree that it is especially disappointing when it's people (1) you tend to align yourself with politically, and (2) people you think should already know better from personal experience that these attitudes are destructive and simply wrong.

 

Every Obama supporter I know uses Hillary as a yardstick and then points out the numerous ways he isn't like her as their reasons for supporting him.  Not being Hillary in 99 ways still isn't a reason to vote for someone for President IMO.

 

I actually need to know a little more about Hillary to form a better opinion of her.  She has nothing to do with why I support Obama.  I simply like what I've heard out of him and read from him.

 

I support Obama because I believe he is pushing for a type of leadership we haven't seen in a long time in this country.  I am not supporting him because I don't like Hillary.  That being said, no candidate is perfect, and you always have to use the others as a yardstick.  You will never agree with every position a candidate takes, so you have to weight which ones you support for each candidate.  I actually feel I need to do this a little more here between Hillary and Barack.  So in that regard if one candidate supports 99 ideals you don't, and the other does, then that's 99 reasons for you to vote for the other for president.

My reason for supporting Obama, outside of the long essay I wrote a while back, is basically geared toward my perception of his ability to work with both parties, and to work with other nations.

 

I believe Hillary Clinton to be very smart and articulate, incredibly hard working, and I believe that she wants this job for the right reasons (i.e. she thinks she can make the country a better place). Unfortunately, she is (as is her husband) a polarizing figure, and while I don't doubt her sincerity in wanting to work in a bi-partisan way, I question her ability to convince those across the aisle to do the same. Not everyone, mind you, but there are those in Congress who feel strongly about the Clintons and would do whatever they could to stop them from achieving anything.

 

In the end, I feel pretty good, because regardless of whether Clinton or Obama make the nomination, I win. Both are fully qualified to be the president, and both have good ideas for policies they would like to initiate.

Thats better...  Thanks, you guys..

People are allowed to vote based on what candidates will do for their race/class/gender? This is preposterous. Where's the ****ing manager?! I want my money back!

^I'm an Obama supporter and you'll never hear that out of me.

 

FWIW willyboy, I have a good friend who is supporting Obama and when we talked, he couldn't articulate any concrete reasons for supporting him either.

 

For one, I respect that he is the only candidate talking about the importance of public transportation, as well as the importance of revitalizing urban cores.

 

I feel the same way about information on Hillary.  It seems as though Hillary supporters spend so much time bashing Obama, that I'm not really even sure what she stands for or why I should like her.

 

Agreed on both points.  Also, Obama's time as a community organizer is a big plus in my book.  Community organizers really get down and dirty tackling the issues that are important to lower income and urban communities, and they don't make a mint doing it.  I see Obama as the best chance we have of getting national political leadership that will focus on the needs of urban communities.

Since I've come to trust this board to the extent that I think the people on here share the same passions as me, I guess I did expect to see more dialogue to help me understand this Obama phenomenon that I have been trying to understand.  Given I can come on here and get every detail to why a restaurant is good or not, but haven't found the same of something that could have such a big impact on things that people on here are so passionate about.  Clearly I need to get over this, and realize I'm not going to find a magical answer, and come to my own conclusions about this.     

 

I haven't questioned Obama's intelligence, although I think it is more that he is a good speaker and that people are so hungry for change given the last 7 years, but I haven't felt that people have fairly looked at the candidates or the issues, or who may be more capable of carrying out actual needed change.

 

I've got an idea, why don't you give a list of reasons of why you support Hillary, a list that is simply positive, and contains no mention of her merits vis-a-vis other candidates, such as Obama or McCain.  Then maybe we could get some dialog going, and perhaps by seeing your opinions parsed by others, you may gain better insight into them and decide whether you want to keep holding them or not.  Maybe you could start the dialog you seem to want, since the current fare seems to strike you as inadequate.

Since I've come to trust this board to the extent that I think the people on here share the same passions as me, I guess I did expect to see more dialogue to help me understand this Obama phenomenon that I have been trying to understand.  Given I can come on here and get every detail to why a restaurant is good or not, but haven't found the same of something that could have such a big impact on things that people on here are so passionate about.  Clearly I need to get over this, and realize I'm not going to find a magical answer, and come to my own conclusions about this.     

 

I haven't questioned Obama's intelligence, although I think it is more that he is a good speaker and that people are so hungry for change given the last 7 years, but I haven't felt that people have fairly looked at the candidates or the issues, or who may be more capable of carrying out actual needed change.

 

I've got an idea, why don't you give a list of reasons of why you support Hillary, a list that is simply positive, and contains no mention of her merits vis-a-vis other candidates, such as Obama or McCain.  Then maybe we could get some dialog going, and perhaps by seeing your opinions parsed by others, you may gain better insight into them and decide whether you want to keep holding them or not.  Maybe you could start the dialog you seem to want, since the current fare seems to strike you as inadequate.

 

 

I just love politics! It gets everyone so riled up. Pass the popcorn! :-D

^I wasn't riled up.  That was a serious suggestion to some one who seemed to be distressed that his opinion wasn't jibing with the opinions of others he felt respect for.  It would make sense to inquire further.

LincolnKennedy that is the logical thing to do, and Im currently sifting through Obama stuff trying to see where he stands on things comparable to Hillary (but again, it does require some digging since there isnt alot of history there) . 

 

Again my argument wasnt about "my opinion not jibing with others" it was that they "have an opinion"  which I finally started to see on the last page, and was rather happy with.  I want to be able to support Obama as well if he recieves the nomination, but need to feel that I have reasons for supporting him, not just the ones I had been previously seeing. 

 

Also, thats what I was trying to do was inquire further..   

There is all this talk of putting a black guy on the ticket for vice president.  Well, that will never happen, do you know why?  Because all the black people would know all they have to do is kill the president and we will have a black president --Chris Rock

I want to be able to support Obama as well if he recieves the nomination, but need to feel that I have reasons for supporting him, not just the ones I had been previously seeing. 

 

Also, thats what I was trying to do was inquire further..   

 

That's sounds good, and I feel the need to do the same with what Hillary stands for.  After all, we're Democrats and we're only gonna have one choice when it comes November time (I'm surely not voting for McCain).

With McCain, Ive actually come to like the guy, because of some encounters I have had with him.  Plus I like that he doesnt really pander to certain groups like we have seen. 

 

Also, he did Cleveland a huge favor about 2 years ago, based on some things that he met with me to discuss.  So I think he does have integrity, and actually thought I would "consider" him, but have found that I just cant... (plus he is just a bit wack-o) 

 

I also over the last few years realized that Im not as liberal as I once thought I was.       

Here's an interesting comment from someone on another forum about Hillary: "We all know her support consists of little more than air-headed sisterhood, prejudiced hispanics, and stupid laboring grunts."

 

This wasn't a comment from some right-wing bigot, it was a comment made by a self-professed liberal and Democrat of African-American descent. The last time I checked - misogyny = homophobia = racism = sexism = bigotry = classism. I have to say I just don't hear that kind of appalling horsesh!t from the Hillary camp.

 

And while I think any supporters can say plenty of idiotic things, this has definitely overwhelmingly been my experience as well, but I guess I was partly attributing it to maybe Obama's "broader" base of support.

 

"I'm seriously considering not supporting Clinton in the general election if she becomes the candidate because of the _sshole attitude that her supporters have projected.  Suggesting that all Obama supporters are hypnotised, starry eyed, sheepish or cult like isn't winning me over.  Let's not forget who has gone negative here, as well."

 

And X, you might want to rethink that line of reasoning, with todays news of the Hillary "monster" comment.  Its one thing to have idiotic supports saying stupid things, but its quite another to have it coming from people in your campaign.

Clinton's campaign darkened Obama in a campaign ad. Where's the resignation from that?

Nice try...

 

Factcheck.org: Clinton Camp Did NOT Darken Obama's Skin in Ad

March 06, 2008 1:43 PM

 

Our friends at Factcheck.org assess the claim made by some liberal bloggers that the Clinton camp appeared to have darkened Obama's skin in a TV ad.

 

They find the claim to be without merit, saying "without further evidence to the contrary, we see no reason to conclude that this is anything more than a standard attempt to make an attack ad appear sinister, rather than a special effort to exploit racial bias as some Obama supporters are saying."

 

Factcheck.org acknowledges that the "Obama frames from the ad do appear darker than other video of Obama from the same event" but say a digital recording of the ad as it actually appeared on TV shows Obama as lighter than the Youtube clips the bloggers were using.

 

"Furthermore, our analysis of the Obama frames, using Photoshop, shows a fairly uniform darkening of the entire image including the backdrop. It is not just Obama's skin color that's affected...nearly all the images in the ad are dark, including those of Hillary Clinton. And dark images are a common technique used in attack ads."

 

A lot of people commenting to my original post said that Obama was playing the race card. As I stated then, Obama's campaign had nothing to do with the question being raised, it was liberal bloggers -- Obama supporters, perhaps, but not the campaign.

 

 

Here's an interesting comment from someone on another forum about Hillary: "We all know her support consists of little more than air-headed sisterhood, prejudiced hispanics, and stupid laboring grunts."

 

This wasn't a comment from some right-wing bigot, it was a comment made by a self-professed liberal and Democrat of African-American descent. The last time I checked - misogyny = homophobia = racism = sexism = bigotry = classism. I have to say I just don't hear that kind of appalling horsesh!t from the Hillary camp.

 

And while I think any supporters can say plenty of idiotic things, this has definitely overwhelmingly been my experience as well, but I guess I was partly attributing it to maybe Obama's "broader" base of support.

 

"I'm seriously considering not supporting Clinton in the general election if she becomes the candidate because of the _sshole attitude that her supporters have projected.  Suggesting that all Obama supporters are hypnotised, starry eyed, sheepish or cult like isn't winning me over.  Let's not forget who has gone negative here, as well."

 

And X, you might want to rethink that line of reasoning, with todays news of the Hillary "monster" comment.  Its one thing to have idiotic supports saying stupid things, but its quite another to have it coming from people in your campaign.

 

I was also under the impression that this person has resigned from the campaign for those comments. 

 

But I'm not talking about comments from one person or another here, whether officially involved with the campaign or not.  Of course there will be people who say malicious things in any group of people, especially a group of people that is vying for power like a campaign staff is.  What I am talking is about what seems to be a persistent talking point in the Clinton camp, and one that seems to be subtly encouraged by the candidate herself.  That point is that anyone who is supporting Obama is somehow not in their right mind.

Clinton's campaign darkened Obama in a campaign ad. Where's the resignation from that?

 

You've got a point there.  Aside from the Daily Kos, I've seen very little outrage about this dispicable act.  Hell, Time Magazine got more heat for darkening OJ's photo in the 90s and, well, I tend to have an inkling that Barack is just a tad more upstanding than The Juice... just a tad... But of late, there seems to be a feeding frenzy in the media for every itty-bitty misstep Obama, or some wayward campaign worker, takes now that the stakes are even higher as we close in on Denver.  Seems highly unfair, although Hillary has really taken Dems down a step w/ her wild mood swings, shrill attacks and dirty tricks while Obama, though not perfect (no human is) has comported himself in a more dignified, dare I say, presidential manner.  And by the way, those are Dana Milbank's thoughts (of the Chicago Tribune: historically no bastion of liberalism) not mine.

Sorry I only have this for Cuyahoga County, but the attached interactive will assist you in seeing how your neighborhood voted in the Dem primary. Of course my tiny precinct (essentially the only residentail are the condos and apartments where I live) did Obama proud.  http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2008/03/voting_in_cuyahoga.html

 

On a more depressing note it appears thus far in the primaries, polled Ohio voters felt race was more important than any other state thus far. Cuyahoga appeared to buck this trend with regard to White voters.

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/03/race_mattered_more_in_ohio_pri.html

^^Aw shucks, if only Ohio's Dem primary had been closed to only UrbanOhio.com voters, Obama would have won in a walk!...

 

Seriously, though, I've seen other analysis that have similarly indicated race in Ohio was much more of a factor (in voting for or against Obama; particularly against him) than in other states even in the old Deep South states.  My theory is this (and folks won't like it), Ohio is simply behind the times on a number of levels.  First, with the old Nixon/Pat Buchanan "Southern Strategy" of the 60s-early 70s, the whites who tend to consider race, or at least, a candidate's sympathy/sensitivity (or lack, thereof) to race were shaken out of the Democratic party.  Not so in Ohio, I think, in part, maybe, because this is (allegedly) a Yankee state and a pro-Union state where on the surface, at least, it behooves working class whites, on some level, to remain Democrats.  Secondly, as most know, just isn't attracting the young, college educated, upwardly mobile whites who are informed enough and secure enough in themselves to see beyond Obama's race.  We, like our hated neighbors to the North, have a horrific ‘brain drain’ in this State.  So naturally, you’re going to have a much larger portion of the populace with views which many would deem as, putting politely, that are less progressive.

 

Then, too, Ohio/Cleveland seems so damn insular sometimes.  We love our Browns.  We love our Buckeyes (even to the extent Wolverine fans literally fear for their personal safety at Columbus OSU-Michigan games), but on stuff that really matters…?... As one who travels frequently, and even lives outside Ohio some of the time, it just feels like, whenever I return home, sometimes, I need to set my watch back 30 years... It's hard to peg a whole state in one particular mindset but sometimes I just get this feeling the level of discourse in Cleveland and Ohio, as a whole, is rather pedestrian/anti-intellectual.  Yes, I know the Rush Limbaugh's and Ann Coulter's hold sway on a national level and appeal to bigots and wingnuts in nooks and crannies all over the country, esp in the South, but I get so depressed when you have local idiots that hold so much sway, like a Mike Trivisonno or Bob Frantz (in Cleveland) and that idiot Cunningham, in Cincy (who got his 15-mins of national fame/shame, and who, thankfully, McCain was upstanding enough to put in his place).  HS dropout Trivisonno, with his race jokes and bathroom humor, is a fat, blowhard, racist, sexist-misogynistic, homophobic moron who, sadly, commands top ratings on Cleveland radio.  What does that say about Cleveland?  As a Jersey/NYC area friend of mine (who I convinced to stream WTAM because she wouldn’t believe me) said of Triv: “That’s so yesterday.”  I knew exactly what she meant.  In most places its played out, but here????  And let’s not even get into Chief Wahoo…

 

So when you understand the mentality of too many Ohioans you kind of understand why Ohio’s Democrats bucked the recent trend with Obama crossing race lines and winning over most demographic groups.  Tuesday was a litmus test on where we are as a state because, as many of us understand, Obama is simply the obvious better candidate.  That’s not to say there are not some legitimate reasons to support Hillary, because there are.  But in most states that have had the time (unlike Super Tuesday) to get to know the candidates, most white Dems have thoughtfully weighed the 2 candidates and decided, with all things being equal, Obama’s simply better and if you’re honest with yourself, the only reason not to vote for Obama over Hillary is based on extraneous reason, most obvious being the color of his skin.  In Ohio, such reasoning didn’t seem to occur that often.

 

Clvlndr

 

As amusing as the Daily Kos is to read, you have to take much of it with a grain….. 

 

The reason there was little outrage for the purposed shading is because it has been found to be unsubstantiated and frankly un-true (which apparently you have chosen to ignore).  So no other legitimate publication would have picked it up as news.  It’s not likely you are going to find the most rational or factual interpretations on a very liberal or very conservative blog.  (I find it just as amusing when my born again military brother sends me things from the ultra conservative blog that he subscribes to that says Obama is “connected to terrorists” (you can only laugh).  You may want to believe the worst in somebody just because you don’t like them, but you should employ some sort of logical standard when doing so.  There is a lot of good, balance reading out there based on factual information.   

 

 

On Power's resignation:

Power most immediately resigned to not draw controversy to a campaign that is supposed to be priding itself on running a hopeful campaign “free of gratuitous negativity and name calling". 

I also think this will be good for the Obama campaign in the long term since, (and I know that he is supposed to have a better team then Hillary).  There has been some contradicting language from some of Obama’s senior campaign workers and what Obama is saying on the campaign trail.  (Power, expressing her doubt that he would be able to carry through his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months, while other advisor's have contradicted Obama’s campaign stance on things like NAFTA).

 

I know some on here see Obama as being constantly attacked from different directions, but this is likely to only increase when you have contradicting things coming out of the campaign (possibly further bringing into question his ability to make an educated decision) as well as not having the history where this has already happened, and of course going up against a Republican opponent.    . 

 

Finally, I only saw further controversy on the horizon with Power’s position as an important foreign policy advisor to Obama when you look at some of her controversial views. 

 

Here is a good example of that:  “Among her more controversial positions has been avowed support for intervention against Israel to secure a Palestinian state. In a 2002 interview at Berkeley, Power proposed that instead of encouraging negotiations between Israelis and Arabs, the United States should spend "billions of dollars" to send a "meaningful military" force to effect the "imposition of a solution" and create "the new state of Palestine" beside Israel. 

 

Probably best that Obama steers clear of that.

 

   

 

^^Aw shucks, if only Ohio's Dem primary had been closed to only UrbanOhio.com voters, Obama would have won in a walk!...

 

Seriously, though, I've seen other analysis that have similarly indicated race in Ohio was much more of a factor (in voting for or against Obama; particularly against him) than in other states even in the old Deep South states.  My theory is this (and folks won't like it), Ohio is simply behind the times on a number of levels.

 

Agreed that Obama lost because Ohio is sort of out of it, but not necessarily in the way you described.  I've been finding it really annoying when the pundits have been saying that Hillary's tactics "worked" in Ohio.  If anything, Obama closed the gap.  I think Strickland's strong pro-Hillary stance really helped her in the Appalachian areas, where he has some pull, but aside from that, the State voted the way it was going to irrespective of the campaigning or previous elections.  Since John Edward dropped out, Hillary was going to win Ohio.

 

On Andrew Sullivan's blog, a reader posted a comment that was pretty perceptive of the State as a whole, and helps to explain why states as similar as Ohio and Wisconsin would end up voting so differently. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/ohio-and-clinto.html#more):

 

Ohio And Clinton

 

04 Mar 2008 12:30 pm

 

A reader explains her appeal in the state:

 

"You cannot underestimate the power of women needing to vote for Senator Clinton. In conversations with coworkers and friends, this need starts with women who are now forty years old and increases exponentially with age. It is almost a feeling they cannot betray womanhood by voting for any man. The historic nature of the vote coupled with nostalgia for the 90's, is very emotionally charged.

 

In many ways, Ohio is behind the times, and is not quite 21st Century.

 

Ohio still wants to have those high paying, manufacturing jobs of the 50's and 60's, and agriculture. I was struck by the interviews on 60 Minutes, Sunday night, from Chillcothe, Ohio. They all seemed to be bemoaning not being able to go to Florida once a year and buying a new car every two years. But only one had tried to get more education for the new challenges of the Global Market.

 

The state legislature has dragged its feet on fulfilling the Ohio Constitution’s mandate for state funding of education. The Supreme Court of Ohio has told them many times of the requirement, but is ignored. The legislature’s laughable solution was school vouchers, in effect, subsidizing the haves’ private education while giving the have-nots a limited choice. So Ohioans still are in a 50’s movie, play football in high school and Dad’s job will be waiting for you.

 

NAFTA did not kill the manufacturing jobs in Ohio; they were going, going, gone, before the agreement. But Ohioans have been waiting for some miracle to bring them back, and if their children do get an education, the children leave the state for better opportunities.

 

So we are in a state very much fighting the culture wars of the last century, educated in the last century, looking for the last century’s solutions."

It looks like this is how the Clintons are looking to win the nomination, by pressuring the delegates who were pledged to Obama through the elections.

 

From a newsweek interview

http://www.newsweek.com/id/120062/page/2

 

How can you win the nomination when the math looks so bleak for you?

 

It doesn't look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process.

 

 

While I agree with some of the reasoning behind Ohio's stance on candidate's, I think this would be a similar case in any similar blue collar type State (ex. Michigan would likely have the same outcome).  There is definately a prevailing blue collar mentality that would prevent some people from voting for an African American, but the same mentality also would prevent others from voting for a woman.  I think we all have seen where some have decided not to vote for Obama based on what they may have heard without educating themselves and doing their research.  For many it was based on what they didn’t know about Obama, and maybe they're own laziness to actually educating themselves about him (then making an educated decision (although I have also argued it the other way for other demographics (young adults/college age kids and African Americans).   

 

It is a rather broad assumption and sweeping generalization to say that "the only reason not to vote for Obama over Hillary is based on extraneous reason, most obvious being the color of his skin."  (doesnt that mentality equally weaken X's argument of what he views of Hillary supporters as "anyone who is supporting Obama is somehow not in their right mind".)

 

How much do you think that the African American support for Obama is based strictly on him being African American as opposed to anything else (in a similar but opposite way that others in your argument would not vote for him)?  And where do you think this puts the proportion of voting/do you think this balances the argument in any way?   

 

 

How much do you think that the African American support for Obama is based strictly on him being African American as opposed to anything else (in a similar but opposite way that others in your argument would not vote for him)?  And where do you think this puts the proportion of voting/do you think this balances the argument in any way? 

 

 

I agree with you that gender is left out of the bias discussion too much, but regarding the race question: according to the exit polls, most voters (60%) who admitted race was an important factor voted for Clinton; so it was NOT a wash between blacks voting for a black candidate and whites who would not vote for a black candidate.  I would also argue that whites preferring to vote for a white a candidate and blacks preferring to vote for a black candidate are not the same phenomenon and have very different implications; in my mind, one is much more indicative of lingering bigotry.  Strangely, it might be as much anti-Muslim (or anti exotic other) as it is anti-African American.

 

Sorry I only have this for Cuyahoga County, but the attached interactive will assist you in seeing how your neighborhood voted in the Dem primary. Of course my tiny precinct (essentially the only residentail are the condos and apartments where I live) did Obama proud.  http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2008/03/voting_in_cuyahoga.html

 

On a more depressing note it appears thus far in the primaries, polled Ohio voters felt race was more important than any other state thus far. Cuyahoga appeared to buck this trend with regard to White voters.

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/03/race_mattered_more_in_ohio_pri.html

 

That map is fascinating.  Shaker Height is just about the most ideal jurisdiction for Obama ever- covering every demographic he does well in, and little else (except maybe some old white ladies; but does college educated trump that?)/

On this very topic, here is an intersting article/opinion written by an African American (oops, Canadian).  Some good points, but obviously rather one sided, so I dont necessarily agree with all of it. 

Note the comments that follow it. 

 

http://allafrica.com/stories/200803100828.html

 

If you would like to learn about Obama's substantive plans read the following:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf (589kb, 64 pages)

 

This is one of my favorite plans that Obama has proposed:

 

Higher Education

Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Obama will also ensure that the tax credit is available to families at the time of enrollment by using prior year’s tax data to deliver the credit when tuition is due.  This credit will be in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.

 

Simplify the Application Process for Financial Aid: Obama will streamline the financial aid process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and enabling families to apply simply by checking a box on their tax form, authorizing their tax information to be used, and eliminating the need for a separate application.

 

And here is something for you Planners out there:

 

Fully Fund the Community Development Block Grant: Obama will fully fund the Community Development

Block Grant program and engage urban leaders across the country to increase resources to the highest-need Americans.

White, non-white, female or male, Geraldine Ferraro is a complete moron:

 

Ferraro leaves Clinton campaign post

 

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press

 

WASHINGTON - Geraldine Ferraro stepped down Wednesday from an honorary post in Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign amid a controversy regarding her comments that Barack Obama wouldn't be succeeding in the race for the White House if he weren't black.

 

[glow=yellow,2,300]Ferraro notified Clinton by letter that she would no longer serve on Clinton's finance committee as "Honorary New York Leadership Council Chair." She wrote that the Obama campaign "is attacking me to hurt you."[/glow]

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_on_el_pr/obama_ferraro

Agree...  Probably not a racist, but a moron. 

IIRC, she said the something similar/along the same lines about Jesse Jackson back in the '80's

yeah she did. that was before 24 hour cable news though, so she got away it to some degree.

^Edward R. Murrow fetish aside, he speaks the truth.

 

Agree...  Probably not a racist, but a moron. 

 

Is there such a thing as a wise racist?

wow!  Oberman shocked me with that.  But it is the truth!

Olbermann rules, well said Keith...

Are the superdelegates listening?  Will the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

 

My thought, since Super Tuesday and the Clinton campaign shake up was that Hillary knew she could not get the nomination.  So she would try to wound Obama so much that he would lose the general election, then in four years, she could run again.  Otherwise, she would have to wait at least eight if not 12 years, possibly more.

.

Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.