In recent weeks, Eric Earling has been making the case that Barack Obama has a problem winning votes among “white, hard-working” Americans. Around the time of the Pennsylvania primaries, I and a few others tried to explain to him in the comments that he was mistakenly extrapolating a local trend in a way that doesn’t translate across the entire country. Having lived in several regions of this country (and having grown up mostly in Pennsylvania), I’m rather familiar with the fact that rural Pennsylvania is very, very different from rural Texas or rural Wisconsin or rural Idaho. But now that this erroneous belief has been finding its way into Hillary Clinton’s talking points, some more people are starting to dig into its inaccuracy.
Daily Kos diarist DHinMI posted up on Monday with a series of charts showing the counties where Obama or Clinton won 65% of the vote. The top map is where Obama won 65% of the vote and the bottom map is where Clinton won 65% of the vote:
These maps show that despite Earling’s claim that Obama’s support is coming solely from urban areas, he’s winning overwhelmingly among Democrats in some very rural, very white parts of the country. Obama’s problem, which is stunningly illustrated by the second map above, is with Appalachia, a part of the country with its own unique culture and political history. Josh Marshall discusses it here, and Jonathan Tilove adds to the analysis here, reinforcing my belief that Jim Webb would be an awesome VP choice for Obama.
Going back to the overall point, Greg Sargent looks into the recent Quinnipiac poll to show that the notion that Hillary does better against McCain among working class white voters (those without a college degree) is pure fiction. Hillary and Obama each have their weaknesses among certain subsets of white America, but despite that, both of them are polling ahead of McCain in a head-to-head matchup (and those polls aren’t even factoring in Bob Barr, who’s able to get airtime on the Fox Business Channel). Considering this nation’s past when it comes to racism, it’s easy to get nervous about the prospects of the first African-American candidate to win a major party nomination, but the facts just don’t back up the notion that rural, or even less educated white voters won’t vote for Obama.
I think the flap over ‘hard working white people’ is something that not so hard working white people get worked up about more than anyone else.
Since when is mentioning a demographic group evidence of racism?
I’m not challenging your integrity, Lee. I’m more referring to an editorial in the ST today by Froma Harrop about inadvertantly creating a backlash against Obama.
I think it’s great that Obama has the youth vote, but take it from me as one who knows, they may not be there on election day. Something really important might come up — like friends and pizza.
@1
I have to admit, I don’t follow the beginning of your comment at all. I don’t think you’re trying to be misleading, but I think you’re imagining that I’m saying something that I’m not. I’m actually pointing out that racism is playing a much smaller effect in the voting patterns of white America than others may believe.
As for the youth vote, it will always be the case that young people don’t vote in as high numbers as older people. But Obama isn’t where he is solely on the youth vote.
If anyone but Chimp was president, I’d be nervous about nominating a black candidate. Frankly, I think the Democrats could elect a brick this year. That’s how much damage Chimp has done to his party. The GOP will be lucky to survive.
gee i thought that barack was a black brick.or was it he has as much chance as a black brick. i think his wife is one of the lee sisters homly,uguly,
Lee –
You’re comparing caucus results to primaries. Apples to oranges, my friend. Caucus attendees and primary voters are two very different slices of the electorate.
Look at where Obama is doing well on that chart: caucus states, the South, and some pockets in Illinois & Wisconsin (which low and behold, just might happen to be concentrations of urban and/or college town voters). Hardly stunning stuff…especially when working class voters have played a significantly less proportionate role in caucuses than in primaries.
@5 Keep hoping the 80% of America’s voters fed up with the Turdblossom Party will pull the trigger for McSame, Eric. Your child-like enthusiasm is invigorating if naive. The British soldiers undoubtedly felt something similar to what you feel before they went over the top on July 1, 1916 — but never mind that.
re 2: I guess the left-handed, unspoken assumption I made was the tone set by your title about Barack Obama and hard working Americans.
I got your point.
But I know that you are an Obama supporter and to make reference to ‘the hard working white Americans’ comment made by Hillary is a dig. I don’t hear you fondly recalling or making reference to Obama’s self-admitted admiration of Ronald Reagan.
He liked the man’s style? What?
I definitely agree with Lee. It would be quite a coup for Obama to have McCain’s former boss as his running mate. Well, technically Webb was Secretary of the Navy after McCain retired. Webb is also a decorated combat hero of the Vietnam War. And to make matters better, he used to be a Republican until a few years ago. And Webb was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan to boot.
Eric @ 5,
Hogwash. Exit polls, primary returns and caucus numbers are ALL imperfect proxies to get at who will or will not support Obama in a general election.
Apparently, you are willing to accept the (somewhat imperfect) exit polls, but not willing to accept the (somewhat imperfect) caucus numbers.
That leaves you what a HUGE “missing data” problem. You are making an inference over the entire country from a very limited geographical sample. Lee choses to use two (somewhat imperfect) indicators over a broader geographical range to make inferences about the entire country.
Both methodologies have their weaknesses, but Lee’s inference seems consistent with national polling.
A more serious error of your analysis is using primary data (Clinton v. Obama) and trying to make inferences about support in a general election (McCain v. Obama). The primary returns/caucus returns/exit polls do not generally allow you to distinguish between two types of primary voters:
1. I voted for Clinton and would NEVER vote for Obama.
and
2. I voted for Clinton but would happily support Obama if he wins the primary.
The facts seem to favor the majority of Dems going for (2). We know this because Obama performs well against McCain in head-to-head polling. Obama currently leads the national head-to-head polling. And is nearly even with McCain, and has the momentum, in the state head-to-head polling.
So rather than making up, what amounts to, bullshit, based on a geographically narrow, imperfect proxy data from the wrong kind of election, why not just watch the McCain–Obama head-to-head polls?
He’s going to have to convince a lot of supposed “bitter people” to vote for him.
Whoa!!! Jim Webb as VP?
How freaking brilliant is that!?!?
STOP THE F’ING PRESSES!!!!
Highly unlikely Webb would take the job at first glance but the more you think about it…
It’s just makes too damn much sense!!!
My head’s spinning!
Obama/Webb 2008!!!
How about McCain/Franz 2008?
Seattle University professor held in online sex sting
By Haley Edwards
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....st14m.html
But Dennis Franz would make a great Veep!
‘Barack Obama and Hard Working Americans’
Why would YLB even comment about anything with the word “work” in it? Talk about hypocrisy!
Mark1,
Ummm…sorry loser. I know YLB (met him in person) and when I last talked to him, he was gainfully employed.
Reality doesn’t seem to be cooperating with your Wingnut fantasyland, there, Squirt.
Darryl @ 9 –
I agree with your “imperfect proxies” discussion, generally speaking. I’m a huge believer that results from primaries/cacuses – as well as general election polls in the spring – provide useful hints but not definitive gauges for how voting in November will unfold.
But more importantly, I’m not inferring anything for the whole country. I’ve said Barack Obama has a problem with working class, white men – mostly in the Midwest. They remain a key demographic in that concentration of swing states and Barack Obama has show a consistent inability to appeal to them.
If I’m wrong on that, then the entire pundit class is wrong as well.
The potential flaw in this argument isn’t the proxy quality of primary vs. caucus voters; it is the quality of Democrats as proxies for Republicans. The graphs only display Democratic voter preferences, and in most rural areas, Democrats are a minority.
You can argue that the R’s in rural areas are never going to vote D anyway, so the only ones that count are the D’s. But if you’re comparing Obama to Clinton, it is not clear how many deeply disaffected R’s she might pull in. And if you’re comparing Obama to McCain, it is not at all clear how attractive McCain might be, especially as his “I’m not Bush,” message sinks in.
I’m an Obama booster, but as far as I can tell, these graphs don’t say much.
Maybe Obama should attack McCain and Bush for privatizing the nation’s ROTC programs. Something I learned about when reading the news coverage of local Republican political hack Andrew Franz’s arrest for trying to arrange for underage internet sex with a fictitious 13 year old girl in Colorado.
Basically, in 2001, ROTC programs stopped being staffed with military personnel. Instead, Bush awarded ROTC contracts for each branch of the services to well-connected private contractors. Instead of being staffed with full-time commissioned officers, the private contractor hires reserve and retired officers. These folks basically wear military uniforms, even though they are not on any sort of military duty (something which used to be a big no-no before privatization).
Needless to say, this program results in enormous diversion of resources from supporting a loyal full-time military staff and command structure, to instead provided large private salaries and profits to the contracting companies.
It also provides jobs to loyal Republican hacks like Andrew Franz, a man who otherwise had a fairly unstable employment background and personal history. Franz managed to land a high-paying contract as an “ROTC professor” at Seattle University. And now we have the current disgraceful allegations against Franz …
The general public has not cared so much about military contract personnel to date — simply viewing this as some issue of folks being hired to do dirty and dangerous work in far off places like Iraq.
But now we have these Republican contractors hiring sex perverts to teach ROTC to our sons and daughters in our colleges and universities.
This does raise another interesting issue. Since ROTC personnel are now private employees, instead of military personnel, the ROTC programs should now be subject to state laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring and education on the basis of sexual orientation.
“If I’m wrong on that, then the entire pundit class is wrong as well.”
Since the pundit class is generally wrong all the time on just about anything, I’d say case closed.
On Webb
I have mixed feelings about an Obama-Webb ticket. A lot dends in whether you look at this position in campaign terms or in terms of hw Team Obama will work.
On the plus side:
Webb is a very impressive campaigner with max credibility on the war issues.
He has good administrative experiences. Indeed he might make a good SOD.
On the negative side:
I do not know how good a team player Webb as Veep would be.
Presumably, Barack will choose Wes Clark, Zini, Power or some such people for State and Defense. These would be the logical purviews of Webb the Veep and would put him in chain of command conflict with Obama,
My guess is that Obama will want a Veep who can take a major role in diplomacy or economics. How well does Web rank in either of these?
On the white vote
I think Earling has some evidence on his side, but the current picture is confused by two elements that may change in the general:
1. Barack has had a long term “right” strategy. He is very Christian and in many ways more “normal working class white” than McCain.
Google the coverage of Obam on CBN. It is astoinishingly positive,
2. The swiftboating with Rev Wright was horrible and will bave some lasting effect bt it happened very early and the near psychotic breakdown at the National Press Club probaby helped Obama by making him look caring.
3. Obama v McCain ois very different than Obama vs, Clinton. Cundy Mcain, the Fielding Five do not project the workigbn class inmage that McCain needs.
Pope;
I’m just back in town, having made a trip overseas for business, and then I flew to Pennsylvania to attend my nephiew’s college graduation, commissioning into the U.S. Army, and wedding – all in the course of three days. There were concerns about how fast they might send him out to his first duty post, so they tried to make sure they squeezed the marriage in before that would happen. As it is, they lost one of the groomsmen, who had to report to his first post only 48 hours after graduation.
Anyway, I hadn’t heard about this out-sourcing of the ROTC program before, if I had I would have asked my nephiew. But as you can understand, he was a quite busy, and my time there was very short, so we didn’t have much time to do more than catch up on a little family gossip.
All of the ROTC programs were “privatized” by Bush in 2001. All ROTC personnel are now employees of private companies, even though they may wear a U.S. military uniform.
The Army ROTC contract is held by Communication Technologies, Inc. (COMTek):
“COMTek mission is to provide highly qualified and motivated contract employees who are focused on enhancing the United States Army Cadet Commands mission of recruiting, training, retaining, and commissioning the Army’s future leaders at over 277 colleges and universities across the country.”
http://www.goarmyrotc.com/
I like James Webb. He is certainly in touch with the rural, southern & Appalachian Scots-Irish roots of his ancestors. He certainly can’t be called an elitist. He was a Marine Lt. in Vietnam, felt out of place while attending ivy-league colleges, and went on to become the Secty of the Navy under Reagan. If anyone in the Democratic party can appeal to the Reagan Democrats, I think it is him.
I read his book “Born Fighting: The Scots-Irish Experience in America” before he ran for his Virginia seat. I think it is pretty accurate for the most part, but when it came to race relations between the African Americans and the Southern & Appalachian Scots-Irish descendents in the 19th & 20th centuries, I think his analysis is more wishfull thinking. For example, he tried to argue that slavery was a problem caused by the English and their descendents in America, not the Scots-Irish – which flies in the face of the fact that quite a few Scots-Irish descendents aspired to become wealthy enough to become slaveholders, many quite successfully.
But James Webb isn’t an “ideal Democrat” on a national level. He’s pro-gun, and anti-affirmative action (as it is now constituted). I haven’t heard about his abortion views. That might be enough to squelch any talk of his nomination. Also, they might be reluctant to take him out of his newly-won Senate seat, if they are nervious about whether there is another Democrat who can hold on to it.
Actually the ROTC started privatizing in 1996. I was part of ROTC in the early 90’s….here’s an article about the beginning of the privatization..
Corporate Warriors
http://books.google.com/books?.....#038;hl=en” rel=”nofollow”
Did I just read clueless idiot’s head is spinning?
Well lookie here, c-i can do Linda Blair tricks too.
Darryl, you met HAs clueless idiot and didn’t lose your mind?
@25 Alias … good post
My thoughts on Webb are similar t yours. OTOH, disagreement with BHO may be a constructive thing. In an article about his management style, I read that he intentionally employs rational people who have contrary view.
The uey word here is “rational.” The Bush admin has accustomed us to irrational management. So many people with reasonable view that diagreed with Bush were fired or quit, that the residual left tunning our country is pretty sad.
Let me suggest one scenario as a thought experiment. Suppose that Edwards is the AG and he decides that hand gun control is essential to control urban poverty. Webb, of course might disagree. BUT if the two o9pponents were/are reasonable there are many compromises that could lead t some sort of improvement in the law. So, on that issue, I could see BHO WANTING more than one stand. Same goes for affirmatve action, school reform, etc.
@17: Poor Eric Earling and the idiot “pundit” class – manufacturing crap. Obama doesn’t have a “problem” with white men – it is white women who favor Clinton and now that she is out of it – they will vote for Obama.
McCain on the other hand has problems with peopel who recognize reality. The Bush economy has ruined this country. Here are some of the factos cited by 3 former heads of the SEC as why they endorse Obama – who has a reasoned plan for the economy, versus McCain who has more of the same incompetence:
”
Yup – McSame and bush have screwed the economy and most voters realize this – as recently as 6 months ago both McCain and Bush were claiming the economy was still “fundamentally” strong – just like how we were going to be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and how the war would pay for itself.
Americans will not vote for people who have been so wrong for so long so often.
SeattleJew @ 21: I think Webb was Secty of Navy during the “Tailgate” scandal, but I haven’t checked the dates to confirm. If so, that might be enough to knock him out of the DOD post. Not that he had anything to do with it personally, of course, but the guy at the top has to take the heat for bad things that happen on their watch.
Unless they are a Republican, of course, in which case they get the Medal of Freedom.
All, I know you don’t watch much of Hannity & Colmes but earlier this week Lanny Davis (Heilary jock strap) said PuddyFact #364: “It’s like saying when we raised the Rev. Wright issue, well, that’s something you shouldn’t do because it hurt Senator Obama. In fact, it forced Senator Obama to address that issue, rather than ignore it.”
So don’t tell me anymore the Republicans brought up the Dr Wright issue, you inbred morons. Heilary and her team did. So why did it take her so long to figger it out. She has the best attack machine in the business, “The Clinton War Room”.
Karl Rove learned to attack from Heilary…
Beating a dead horse might be a phrase to accurately blanket your Fuddyduddy posts.
slingshit: And your “brilliant” mind added what to this thread?
crickets chirping, birds singing, turtles speeding down the shore, seagulls flapping…
Since slingshit is like clueless idiot and lives on left wing warm man-made white sticky .8 second pulsing kool-aid sites, his “brilliance” is so illuminating….
@5
You’re comparing caucus results to primaries.
Absolutely not. Kansas was a primary and that’s about the greenest state on there. If the caucus vs primary difference is what’s at play here, it would be reflected by the mapping. It’s not. It’s clearly a regional trend as I’ve been saying all along.
Caucus attendees and primary voters are two very different slices of the electorate.
And what evidence do you have that a caucus attendee is more likely to be an Obama supporter or vice versa?
Look at where Obama is doing well on that chart: caucus states, the South, and some pockets in Illinois & Wisconsin (which low and behold, just might happen to be concentrations of urban and/or college town voters). Hardly stunning stuff…especially when working class voters have played a significantly less proportionate role in caucuses than in primaries.
And rural Kansas. Why is Kansas such a glaring inconsistency with your analysis? What about Nevada? Clinton did really well there, even though it’s a caucus. Could it also be because of hispanic voters? I’ve readily admitted that hispanic voters are inclined to vote for Clinton and that’s why you’re seeing the trends in places like California and south Texas.
You’re seeing what you want to see, Eric. The polls say otherwise right now.
@17
If I’m wrong on that, then the entire pundit class is wrong as well.
It would be far from the first time.
“Hannah” @ 26
Thanks for the link! :)
@32 Puddy …
Just the fact man ….
Faux/Hannity
My understandign is that purchased the tapes and isolated the loops we all saw/heard too much.
The media clearly went on a feeding surge .. not just Faux but the others as well.
So, in this case Faux, as a political agent of the radical right functioned as a spin machine.
They have tried to do the same with the Ayers story.
Wouold anyother network have pulled this stunt? I do not know but suspect not.
As for Clinton, she did not begin this but she was clearly complicit in a verbal effort t lynch .. a term I use advisedly .. Rev. W.
I have no doubt SHE does not see this as racism, but few white liberals do understand what appears racist to AA. …not that the AA are necessarly correct, but part of the job BHO is doing is to let both sides of the melanin curtain get a better idea of what life is like on the other. Hillary is too smart, too well advised, and has too many AA advisers NOT to fully nderstand that she was on the edge of a lynching mob.
Back et el Puddo ..
so my man, whtcha gonna do? As a moderate/patriotic ‘merican you are gonna have a new kind of choice. McC vs Obama … rationality vs rationality. Two worthwhile recipes to keep the American stew stirred? You gonna eat from one or the other or just sit back and pontificate?
@32: And McCain brought up the false “Hamas” issue. According to the “supposed” jounalist Hamas has “endorsed” avery democrat. What a load of crap. Obama is tougher on bin Ladin and on terrorists than Bush or McSame – and getting out of Iraq will only help us to fight terrorism.
Oh – and Rev. Wright was NEVER mentioned on Faux news….gee, I listen to the idiots on there sometimnes and that was ALL they could talk about and it was all the National Review could write about….the right wing that Puddy supports was ALL over this and Clinton picked up on it (in the sleazy way they run the campaign) – but don’t pretend this wasn’t THE major RIGHT WING attack – and it will be again in the general election. This is thinly veiled racism – abetted by the right wing mouthpieces.
SeattleJew: Did you forget already? I have taken barbs from both sides.
1) I stated over and over I don’t like McCain. Even though Bob Bennett recommended his exoneration from the Keating Five (no wrongdoing) it was those lefties at Common Cause that wanted “a Republican included” – Posted PuddyFact.
2) I stated my support for Barack Hussein Obama. Gave multiple reasons. But your clueless idiot attacked me over it. See why I named him HAs clueless idiot.
Once again he’s called nevercorrectnottobright.
I posted PuddyFact #239: Nancy Pelosi was endorsed by Hamas for Speaker of the House in October 2006. I posted three different European MSM links where this comment was taken from.
Now fast forward to 2008. Since Fox News is right leaning and Heilary’s team delivered the Dr. Wright issue to all news programs, do you see how your comment in #40 is sooooooooo stuuuuuuuuupid? Even Keith Olbermann had a comment or two on it, begrudgingly of course…
nevercorrectnottobright: Just for you I’ll replay what Lanny Davis said: “It’s like saying when we raised the Rev. Wright issue, well, that’s something you shouldn’t do because it hurt Senator Obama. In fact, it forced Senator Obama to address that issue, rather than ignore it.”
I see reading is not fundamental for you…
Democrats: Please wrap-up the fight between Hillary and Obama. We’re tired of it. Nominate Obama and get on with it.
Senator Obama,
Please don’t select Hillary as Veep. If you select Hillary, the Clinton fanatics are Machiavellian enough to engineer your untimely death, somewhere around the Ides of March in 2011. That way, Hillary can ascend to the presidency, get her happy ass re-elected two years later and then again in four year, and be prez for 10 years. (Sorta like LBJ.) America can’t take “Richard Nixon in drag” for 10 years!
Let’s promise ourselves one thing after this election: no more Clintons, no more Bushes. Never, never, ever!
@42: Once again Puddy cites so-called facts from a biased source. This reporter, who gets these so-called endorsements is a right wing Israeli who calls up his buddy (not really in Hamas) but close enough, to announce support for most any democrat (you would think people would get wise to the fact the guy is not a Hamas official and has fingered almost every democrat – including clinton – for supposed Hamas support) . Anyone with half a brain can see through this charade – but Puddy cites them as facts. This just shows where puddy’s piss-poor info comes from and how easily hoodwinked he is. Puddyfacts = Puddyfiction.
@43
Puddy, that Lanny Davis quote does not prove what you think it proves. SeattleJew is correct on this. The Wright clips were pushed on Fox News by either Itchy or Scratchy (you get do decide whether Hannity is Itchy or Scratchy).
@43: Just for poor Puddy here are the links to Faux news citing Rev. Wright FIRST:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2.....1-attacks/
March 14th
First mention by clinton: March 20th after she was asked about it be a reporter.
Poor Puddy: Your quote proves nothing and your facts are lacking and your logic is …well…sad. Faux news pushed the issue – period.
Wrong AGAIN.
@16 Daryll:
Your usual delusions are entertaining, yes. Now off to buy those tampons kid, for being less than a man, that is in fact your chore for the day.
Nevercorrectstillnottobright@45:
I got my info from biased sources on Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement.
Let’s see:
Jerusalem Post
Haaretz
Die Spiegel
The Guardian (UK)
Yep those are biased sites…
Lee: Did you read what I said:
Let me assist you with Post #42:
Of course Fox News is gonna run with it. It attacks a Democrat! Just like CNN and ABC tried with their Friday night attack of McCain with Hagee…
Incorrectnotbright@47: How do we know what the Clinton Crime Machine War Room sent to the news organizations before she discussed it?
I believe Lanny Davis. I think the Clinton’s dug this up and tried to be coy about it. Give it to the various news orgs and see what happens then comment on it afterwards…
Sorry Incorrectnotbright, this fits her modus operandi perfectly…
Also incorrectnottobright, the Chicago Tribune discussed Wright and Obama 1-21-2007. If you could only follow a timeline.
http://www.chicagotribune.com /news/custom/religion/ chi-070121-relig_wright,1,271630.story?page=1&coll=chi-religion-topheadlines&ctrack=1&cset=true
incorrectnottobright, I previously posted the Trib article in another posting. I guess you forgot being a 16%er.
@33 & 34, Poor little fuddydudd, his despiration is growing by the day as his beliefs disintegrate like an unarmoured Humvee driving over an IED. You’re a conquering hero, though, fuddy. In your own mind.
So incorrectnottobright, I am only wrong again in your silly mind because you forget too much. Puddy seldom forgets.
Nevercorrectstillnottobright:
Sorry to destroy your timeline 16%er,
ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jmRkCx15zRtf8yAn-8Kg1KWcUthgD90BS3UO1
Timeline of Barack Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright
By The Associated Press – Apr 29, 2008
Key dates in the relationship between Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
1972 — Wright becomes pastor of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ.
1985 — Obama begins working as a community organizer in Chicago; meets Wright.
1988 — Obama embraces Christianity after hearing a Wright sermon on hope.
1992 — Obama joins Trinity United Church; Wright officiates at Obama’s wedding.
Feb. 10, 2007 — Obama decides not to have Wright deliver the invocation at the launch of his presidential campaign.
Feb. 22, 2007 — Rolling Stone magazine publishes a profile of Obama that includes Wright using profanity to condemn American racism.
March 13, 2008 — ABC News airs a report on some of Wright’s inflammatory remarks. Clips from his sermons begin circulating on TV and the Internet.
March 14, 2008 — Obama calls Wright’s remarks “completely unacceptable and inexcusable;” says the reverend had stepped down from a campaign advisory committee.
March 18, 2008 — Obama delivers speech on race; criticizes Wright but says he can’t “disown” him.
April 28, 2008 — Capping a media blitz after weeks of silence, Wright says criticism of his sermons amounts to criticism of black churches in general.
April 29, 2008 — Obama says he is “outraged” by Wright’s “divisive and destructive” comments and their relationship has been permanently damaged.
So now we see it was Rolling Stoned who first delivered it…
Gosh Nevercorrectstillnottobright you need to research before your write blog entries…
So Nevercorrectstillnottobright and other 16%ers here I guess ABC is now the Real FAUX News huh?
slingshit: Can’t refute my PuddyFacts so he attacks me. My beliefs disintegrating?
I believe donkeys should practice donkoinfanticide.
I believe donkeys should give back all their Bush Tax gains back to the guvmint.
I believe YLB is truly a clueless idiot
I believe Carl Left Foot Grossman is an honorable man.
I believe Pelletizer should only comment on Sound Transit and Law Issues
I believe slingshit is a moe-ron.
I believe SeattleJew believe what he believes
I believe incorrectnottobright really strives to be the best he can be. Too bad it’s a below ground level.
I believe Goldy hopes to latch onto Darcy Moonbat!s coat strap if she wins.
I believe we haven’t had any attacks since 9/11.
I have many more but that’s enough for now.
As Clinton Eastwood said: “Make My Day!
@57
Puddybud, where in your timeline did Hillary push the Wright stuff into the media?
You’re quickly becoming Headless Lucy in this thread.
Lee, you need to ask ABC News where they got the information from. Heck if I know.
But again you discount Lanny Davis. I posted his direct words from H&C. Please refute them with facts. Prove Lanny Davis is a liar. Prove he doesn’t know what he knows or has publicly said. I went to http://www.newshounds.us and found the Lanny quote. You know Newshounds… they watch Fox so you don’t have to…
@61
I’m not saying Lanny Davis is a liar. I’m saying that you’re reading far too much into his words. He’s referring to raising the issue in relation to Obama’s electability. He’s not referring to pushing the story into the media.
Believe me, I’m not much of a fan of Davis or Hillary, but there’s no conspiracy here, just political opportunism.
Lee, no one except the wacky 16%ers here are disputing what Lanny Davis said May 13th. I can’t find anyone taking his comments to task anywhere
How come no one is taking Chris Matthews to task for this comment?:
“You know, I think if Hillary Clinton says the word ‘white’ one more time, she’s going to be accused of being the Al Sharpton of white people.”
“I mean, we’ve known the ethnic and racial issues always get in the way of, you know, arguing over issues, real issues, but this conversation as it’s turned, I mean, I even hate saying things like “white working class voters,” you know. I was taught growing up, don’t even say words like “blue collar,” don’t even get into that kind of elitist talk. We’re not sociologists, we’re Americans. How do we get back away from this where these people like Hillary Clinton so loosely say “hard-working white workers” and, you know, it’s almost like she’s the Al Sharpton of white people.”
If a Republican said that you’d have this on 24×7.
@63
Lee, no one except the wacky 16%ers here are disputing what Lanny Davis said May 13th. I can’t find anyone taking his comments to task anywhere
Again, I’m not defending Davis. I’m just pointing out that what he said does not prove a conspiracy.
But Lee, I am not trying to “prove” a conspiracy. All I am saying is it’s amazing the Wright Story shows up Mar 13th on ABC News, before Fox News played it. Now your bud incorrectneverbright claimed it was on Fox first. Well like always it’s easy to prove him wrong…
But a conspiracy? All I did was to print the words of Lanny Davis… Others claimed I was trying to show something I wasn’t even thinking about…
I guess the 16%ers hatred of Fox and their news monopoly being broken really ticks them off.
Puddy seldom forgets.
Except his own lies about MWS.
Mr. “my word is my bond” (bullshit).
Ahhh. More losing shit about the MSM librul conspiracy. Sick to my freaking stomach.
November, I’m begging you to get here quicker.
59 – shows a truly small-minded fool.
There goes my stomach again.
If the report is true and obama is clean, well, except for his staff member that visited with hamas…
Why do you think hamas endorsed both obama and every democrat?
Hey clueless idiot – Remember November 10th 2006 at 10:00 AM. “My job here is done I For the Clueless will be leaving HorsesASS”.
Remember November 10th 2006 at 5:07 PM. Yos Lib Bro appears. After I figgered out who you were… well you became HAs clueless idiot.
See ya. Thanks for playing…
clueless idiot: If I am a small minded fool, then you must be a no mind clueless idiot.
Again, thanks for playing…
Sean on his radio show talks about trying to get it into the MSM for over a year.
Maybe it just took a different messenger, lanny davis.
How can the 16%ers be so scared of something they refer to as faux?
One would think the 16%ers could come up with a tougher sounding name for the cable channel that brings out such fear in them.
@72
Sean on his radio show talks about trying to get it into the MSM for over a year.
Thank you, Marvin. That’s the whole point that Puddy is refusing to acknowledge. SeattleJew and correctnotright are right on this and he’s wrong.
@69
Why do you think hamas endorsed both obama and every democrat?
Because some radical groups become more moderate when they get to power. Sadly, our radicals never did.
Lee @ 36 –
You need to check your research. Kansas was a Super Tuesday caucus.
If you can’t get your basic facts right, it makes it difficult to have a constructive argument.
Also, I’m not sure what your point is about Hispanic voters. Of course they’re pro-Clinton, thus the success she has found in much of the SW and California. I don’t think we have any disagreement on that point.
Remember November 10th 2006 at 5:07 PM.
I remember a loser circle jerking with MWS.
@ 66
But a conspiracy? All I did was to print the words of Lanny Davis… Others claimed I was trying to show something I wasn’t even thinking about…
But, @ 52, you said:
I believe Lanny Davis. I think the Clinton’s dug this up and tried to be coy about it. Give it to the various news orgs and see what happens then comment on it afterwards…
A lot of folks would use the word “conspiratorial” to describe the behavior you’ve ascribed to the Clinton campaign, and even more folks would say that you’re putting quite a bit of stock in a singular interpretation, to the exclusion of others, of the phrase “when we raised” in your comment @32.
In a similar vein, there’s a significant difference between the meanings of the verbs “raise” and “press”. Some folks, on both sides of the political fence, have “raised” the Rev. Wright issue. Hell, even Bill Moyers did that.
Few have “pressed” the Rev. Wright issue, both in the number of times they’ve covered the issue and the astounding lack of depth in their coverage, quite the way Fox Noise has pressed the Rev. Wright issue.
reinforcing my belief that Jim Webb would be an awesome VP choice for Obama.
I’m not sure there’s such a thing as an awesome VP choice, because who cares? Nobody votes for Veep. I suppose there are choices that are so bad that they could peel off votes, but for the most part nobody is voting for the bottom of the ticket.
@76
You need to check your research. Kansas was a Super Tuesday caucus.
You’re correct about that. I went to a page that had the results listed as a primary. Either way, you’re still quite wrong about your overall point. Obama is not doing any worse than Clinton among white voters without a college education.
@79
Carl,
Someone who can continue to shatter the myth of Democrats being weak on foreign policy will be a huge benefit for the ticket.
#80: Sorry, but Obama has lost the lower-income voters east of the Mississippi in nearly every primary since Iowa. WV isn’t just a statistical anomaly.
I don’t know what exit polls/maps you’re looking at, but this is no small problem. And that he basically flipped-off WV isn’t going to help him at all in KY. Aside from that, MT and SD aren’t exactly urban.
You need to get over your Obama worship and start facing some facts other than those in the echo chamber of the uber-liberal blogosphere (not to be confused with progressives, of which I am one).
The point I was making was that without lanny daivs the wright issue wouldn’t have gotten the light of day in the MSM.
He was talking about pushing the story into the media. The MSM sure as hell didn’t run with it for the year that sean was pushing it.
But doesn’t this prove the liberal bias in the MSM. That they wouldn’t air the videos until a democrat wanted it aired?