May 12, 2008
It's Time to Talk About White Working-Class Democrats — Without Fear of False Accusations of ‘Playing the Race Card’ (Lanny Davis)
(Mr. Davis is a longtime supporter and fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's, D-N.Y., presidential campaign. These comments are his own and do not represent Sen. Clinton's campaign.)
There they go again.
Another completely false charge of Hillary Clinton "playing the race card."
Sen. Clinton recently quoted from an Associated Press article that described the indisputable fact that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has shown political weakness among white working-class voters. And the media stampede began: The pundits and Obama surrogates pounced and accused her of interjecting race into the campaign.
That is as much a false and unfair charge as the prior examples of largely media-created misreporting that led to Sen. Clinton and President Clinton being falsely accused of "playing the race card" in December 2007-February 2008 prior to Super Tuesday. (See my blog last week.) http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/05/05/the-media-created-big-lie/
In 1980, many white, working-class Democrats — the core of the original FDR Democratic coalition — voted for Ronald Reagan and not only helped produce a national landslide in the presidential election but also initiated what came to be a daunting new Republican majority coalition that lasted for 12 years. That new majority swept over Walter Mondale in 1984 and Michael Dukakis in 1988. These white, working-class voters — conservative on cultural and values issues — came to be known as "Reagan Democrats." And they were voting against liberal, white Democratic presidential candidates, not an African-American one. Discussing the reasons why and what to do about it was not "playing the race card."
In 1992, and again in 1996, Bill Clinton found the answer. By emphasizing economic issues and talking to, rather than talking down to, these white working-class and rural voters on cultural and values issues, he won many of them back without sacrificing his commitment to civil rights and economic justice for minorities.
The result: Clinton was the first Democrat since FDR to be elected to two terms as president. Then, in the elections of 2000 and 2004, Democrats lost twice to George W. Bush, in large part due to renewed weakness among these white blue-collar voters in states such as West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and New Hampshire.
So when Sen. Clinton recently referred to the AP story, she was focusing on the same problem Democrats faced in the 1980s. And she was addressing the right question — a non-racial one — not only for the Democratic Party's future but for Sen. Obama if he should become the Democratic Party nominee: How does the party get back these white Reagan Democrats needed to defeat Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)?
Ducking West Virginia and Kentucky
Signs that the Obama campaign may be too dismissive of the need to worry about white working-class Democrats might be seen by Sen. Obama's decision to begin a victory lap prematurely — and, specifically, to write off West Virginia and Kentucky in the next two important Democratic primaries.
These are surely two states where there are heavy concentrations of blue-collar Democrats who are prime potential for becoming "McCainocrats."
What does it tell these voters when Sen. Obama's campaign preferred to send him all the way to Oregon to find a friendly and affluent college-student audience — while flying over coal miners and economically down-and-out families in the towns and rural areas of Kentucky and West Virginia?
Sunday's New York Times may provide one answer. According to the Times, the Obama campaign has not targeted West Virginia and Kentucky as battleground states should Sen. Obama be the nominee — at least not yet. Why is that? Bill Clinton carried both states in 1992 and 1996. But George Bush won back many of the Reagan Democrats who live there in large numbers and carried both of these states in 2000 and 2004.
Yet in the latest April 11 Survey USA poll in Kentucky, Sen. Clinton is running in a statistical tie with Sen. McCain — while Sen. Obama is down 34 percent! That margin will get bigger, if that is possible, if Sen. Obama is the nominee and the people of Kentucky see themselves written off by the senator who didn't even bother to campaign seriously for their votes during the race for the Democratic nomination.
Battleground States: Polls Show Clinton Stronger Than Obama
Here are other recent polling data from most of the key battleground states that should be noted by the Democratic Party's superdelegates —showing, quite dramatically, that Sen. Clinton is a stronger general-election candidate than Sen. Obama in these crucial states:
* In Ohio, Rasmussen's May 1 poll has Sen. Clinton up 10 percent and Sen. Obama in a dead heat (down 1 percent) with Sen. McCain.
* In Florida, Rasmussen's April 14 poll showed Sen. Clinton in a statistical dead heat with Sen. McCain (plus 1 percent), while Sen. Obama was down 15 percent. (The May 1 Quinnipiac poll has Sen. Clinton plus 8 percent and Sen. Obama down 2 percent within margins of error.)
* In Missouri, as of the May 8 Rasmussen poll, Sen. Clinton is in a statistical dead heat with Sen. McCain (minus 2 percent) while Sen. Obama is down 6 percent. (The April 17 Survey USA poll similarly shows Sen. Clinton plus 1 percent, within margin of error, while Sen. Obama is down a significant 8 percent margin.)
* And as of April 13, according to the Survey USA/WBZ TV poll, in Massachusetts — the most reliably Democratic state in presidential contests in the last 40 years (e.g., the only state to vote for George McGovern in 1972) — Sen. Obama was surprisingly running in a statistical dead heat against Sen. McCain (plus 2 percent) while, in the same sample, Sen. Clinton was ahead by 15 percent.
Of all the results that suggest Sen. Obama could have a serious general-election problem — mainly caused by weakness among white working-class Democrats — the most telling was his failure, at least as of mid-April, to be ahead of McCain by the kind of margin Sen. Clinton was in Massachusetts, one of the bluest of all blue states.
The Red States — Not in Play?
Meanwhile, as to Sen. Obama's campaign's argument that he puts more "red states" in play, take a look at the New York Times’s map of the Obama "target" states. You won't find many "red" states — certainly not Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, etc., the very states that the Obama campaign carried in the Democratic Party caucuses, with an average of 4 percent turnout, and touted at the time as evidence that he could appeal to Republicans in the general election.
Even red state Kansas appears to have been written off by the Obama campaign, according to the Times map. This appears to be so even though Sen. Obama was endorsed by Kansas's Democratic governor, Kathleen Sebelius, and the Obama campaign has in the past strongly implied that Kansas would be "in play."
Maybe the reason is that the latest Survey USA poll in mid-April shows Sen. McCain defeating Sen. Obama in Kansas by 17 percent — about the same margin as Sen. Clinton.
Even in Virginia, which the Obama campaign touts as "in play" and is included as such in the New York Times map, Sen. Obama was down to Sen. McCain, as of mid-April, by 8 percent.
Lesson Learner?
It is in this context that Sen. Clinton's comment to the AP should be understood. She was quoting a published fact that superdelegates should consider before making a final decision.
Perhaps the Obama campaign will learn a lesson similar to the one they apparently learned from the Rev. Wright issue: Better to confront difficult issues sooner rather than later.
If Obama becomes the nominee, his campaign will be better served if they begin addressing now the senator’s obvious difficulties in winning substantial support from white working-class Democrats. That would be far better than "flying over" those difficulties and making believe that they do not exist — or worse, attacking the messenger and her motives rather than solving the problem.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 129 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
Mr.Davis, thank you for excellent analysis backed up with facts and for defining Obama's campaign for what it is, naive operatives who cannot look further ahead than their noses.
Such attitude could be explained as:
1) Obama's team didn't expect to win a nomination and therefore prepared only to do well in primaries to end up as Hillary's VP as a launching pad for the future runs. This focusing on specific states to gain delegates is an indication of such short-sighted strategy.
2) Obama's team may have believed Bill Richardson's fairy tales about shifting demographics and Latino vote going strongly for Obama (with cabinet post going to Richardson) that would compensate for Reagan democrats going to McCain or sitting out election.
Either way, it shows immature, superficial way of thinking for Obama, more interested in making short-term impact rather than winning and especially governing the country.
Comment by Misha — May 12, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
Geez Lanny-
Don’t you remember Ross Perot? Yeah, that Texas billionaire who ran in 1992 and got nearly 19% of the vote- his candidacy affected 17 states:
Here, see for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1992
While Clinton did receive a significant number of votes from the so-called Reagan Democrats, Perot siphoned enough voters from Bush that sealed Clinton's victory.
Now WV and KY have a total of 13 Electoral College votes. THIRTEEN, to hear you Clintonites, you would think that WV has 20 votes!!
While you argue significance of white working class voters, conversely, a similar argument can be made about the African American vote and without it–She loses PA, OH, MI, GA, FLA, VA and IL are both out of reach. A Democrat needs a large turnout and a minimum of 86% of the African American vote to carry those states. Do u think blacks will come out in great numbers to support HRC after she steals the nomination?
That is the fallacy of your argument and why the SDs aren’t buying it–do u think they plan to overturn the will of voters and diss the Dem Party's most loyal and bankable constituency?
Her campaign is broke!–I guess the plan is to put HRC on top of the ticket with Obama as VP? He would be tasked with dutifully bringing the black folk back home and financing her campaign? LOL keep dreaming.
Selective memory and reasoning seems to be the modus operandi of the Clinton camp. I just hope you spend as much time and energy supporting the Obama ticket as u do defending your boss' flawed campaign.
Comment by Theard — May 12, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
give it up, old man. I get that you're mad that you're not going to get invited to the Lincoln Bedroom any more (or CNN for that matter) but its time to face facts. Its over. You lost. Your girl lost. The rest of us are enjoying your misery as well as looking forward to that day in the near future where we wöñt have to see your mug on our TV screens ever again.
Comment by PR — May 12, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
Lanny,
Take your racist views and go home. No matter how long an article you write, it comes out to be the same thing; that Barack can't win because white men won't vote for him.
I think you are wrong and I think that the voters should decide. For you to claim that there is any justification for the will of the people to be over-ridden in order to bolster racism in America is ludicrous! You and Senator Clinto should both be ashamed!
Comment by smilinjack — May 12, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
The race police likes to have it both ways: race can be mentioned to ruminate about racial victimhood, but not in any other way. I actually don't like race-based conversations and have once urged on this blog not to bring up race unless one has to. At the same time, this anti-free speech situation is not healthy. If 92% of blacks are voting for Obama, it's a fact. It's also not a random fact, they are not voting for him this way because it's a weird coincidence. The race police latch on to the use of the word "white" by Hillary as proof positive that she is a racist and/or is using the "race card". I've seen a proponent of this view trying to prove it, and it was hysterical: unless they can read her mind it's not possible to do it logically. Meanwhile, nobody is questioning Obama's continuous membership in a church that's "unashamedly black". Enough of this fake hypersensitivity.
Comment by Igor R. — May 12, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
Yeah, whatever Lanny, whatever.
Comment by Lester — May 12, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
You know that a "debunking" of a politician's racist comment is in trouble when the debunking can't even bring itself to print the quote they're defending.
Thanks, Mr. Davis. After watching you get schooled by Anderson Cooper last week, you've become this year's comic relief from the Clinton side.
Comment by torrentprime — May 12, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
Lanny, I will do a little dance when you and the Clintons are gone. You and the Clintons set the Democratic party back 20 years.
Hillary wins the white vote because of white women, not because white voters are racist, which is what you are implying. How do your core supporters enjoy being called narrow-minded and racist? That is all your doing.
I'm a white voter from Ohio…I don't like being called racist. And the people of my state are nothing like those in West Virginia and Kentucky.
Every time you open your mouth you dig Hillary's hole deeper. You are the worst surrogate in history. You do more harm than good. In fact, aside from Hillary herself, I could argue you have done the most damage to her reputation, image, and future in the party. You, super-surrogate extrodinaire, ALWAYS available when the networks want to embarrass Hillary, have single handedly submarined Hillary's chances on the cable news shows on a daily basis.
You are Hillary's Reverend Wright.
Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com
Comment by Brian — May 12, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
Mr. Davis spent a lot of time an energy (last post May 4) crunching these numbers to support his bias. Politics is not an exact science. Something besides the math is at play here. Perception.
Mr. Davis has been around politics long enough to have learned that perception is reality in the political petri dish. By all accounts both Bill and Hillary Clinton should be smart enough and aware enough not to have put themselves in the position of defending accusations of racist comments with counter-accusations that it is their accusers who are the racists. This defense did not serve Geraldine Ferraro well, and Mr. Davis is not serving the Clintons well by defending them.
And for the record, Obama "flying over coal miners and economically down-and-out families in the towns and rural areas of Kentucky and West Virginia" is an inaccurate and critical assessment as Senator Obama did indeed campaign in both States despite them being overwhelmingly slanted toward Senator Clinton; Mr. Davis is attempting to besmirsch Senator Obama…but that's nothing new, is it?
Finally, Mr. Davis opening with: Another completely false charge of Hillary Clinton "playing the race card" shows a junior high school lack of proper grammar. Something is either true or it is false, and does not require the quantifier "completely." (But then, seeing how his candidate spent the entire campaign exploiting the gray areas, this is predictable).
I'm not sure why he put "playing the race card" in quotations, except perhaps to distance himself from the absurdity of his premise.
Comment by Rob — May 12, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
What is interesting about the attacks being made by the Obama campaign is that anyone who is supporting Clinton is now a racist. That is pretty much going to be the game plan for the Obama campaign until November. If anyone disagrees with Obama on any issue, they're a racist. If you question Obama's lack of experience, you're a racist. If you don't think Obama can "bridge" the differences between Republicans and Democrats, you're a racist. If you think Obama's tax policies will destroy the economy, you're a racist. If you think his healthcare policy will be a disaster, you're a racist. If you question why he sat in a church for 20 years and never questioned what the pastor was saying, you're a racist. If you think it's dumb to talk to terrorist nations like Iran without preconditions, you're a racist. If you think his inexperience in foreign policy will only make the world more dangerous rather than safer, you're a racist. If you question why he hasn't sponsored or created one major bill in the Senate, you're a racist. If you wonder why we should elect a man president who hasn't even been in the Senate for more than one term, you're a racist. If you wonder what kind of judges he'd appoint to the Supreme Court, you're a racist. And if you just don't like the suits he wears, you're obviously a racist. Yup, expect a lot of this from now until November because, as we all know from the Obama campaign, all whites are racists (except for the ones who vote for him).
Comment by Libertyship46 — May 12, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
One more indisputable fact Lanny: Hilary's indisputable weakness in attracting hardworking African-American Democrats.
This is the indisputable fact that the superdelegates will not ignore.
And my final indisputable fact is that the Clinton legacy depends on their ability to deliver those hardworking white Democrats for Obama.
Comment by Phyllis — May 12, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
When party leaders of WVA and KY have publicly stated the majority in their states would never vote for a black man, maybe Obama simply tried harder in other states and opted to pass on the indignities. Maybe that's his reality. Maybe he feels he'd be better served to campaign hard in those states once he has secured the nomination and is running against one candidate (rather than Bubba and HC.) I understand what HC was trying to say, but I haven't heard Obama demean her campaign for losing the AA vote and being unable to win the general without it. The point is, don't cherry pick polling data at this stage of the game and use it to tear down your own party's candidate. The polls you cite will no doubt change between now and Nov. don't you think?
Comment by DT — May 13, 2008 @ 1:57 am
'Better to confront difficult issues sooner rather than later.'
Oh, so MRS Clinton is just being helpful, ‘quoting published facts’; well she is that kind of gal? And on a serious note: when will you face the fact that it's over for that parasite you so blindly support?
Comment by james d granata — May 13, 2008 @ 8:03 am
You've got a point. When Obama referred to whites as bitter bible thumping pickup truck drivers, he was hailed on several stations as being insightful and correct. The double standard, which by the way is hailed and enforced by the Democratic party, is being used to shotgun Hillary for saying what amounted to less.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 13, 2008 @ 8:13 am
You know something Lanny, this wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that Hilary is the one who initiated the race card in the first place. It was her last pitch call for white americans to vote for her and not the black man. Sad reality for her though is that if she truly had the white working class vote she would have been the nominee by now. You see Lanny, people aren't falling for the old politics anymore you and team clinton are the only ones living in denial. This is 2008, not 1948. that's why she's losing. And I still believe he won Indiana. So Misha, if Lanny's article is your version of the truth, take your rose color shades off and face the facts. The facts Misha, the facts.
Comment by Yvonne — May 13, 2008 @ 8:40 am
Oh yes, Lanny one more thing. Every poll always has Obama losing in every contest, but for some reason he continues to win. So much for your polls. And as far as Mccinsane, his party KNOWS no one is going to vote for a war president again. People want the truth, and when the truth about Mccinsane comes out (via the internet, cause the media won't show it) He too will be toast.
Comment by Yvonne — May 13, 2008 @ 8:44 am
Lanny,
You are as prediticable as the tide. To deny that the Clintons have been playing the race card in this primary is denying reality. The funny thing is that the most powerful brand name in politics, partnered with a huge bankroll, a giant superdelegate lead and having the opportunity to be the first female president, fell right on its face. Clinton's failure to win the nomination will go down as the greatest upset in political history and you are your cronies help orchestrate it all. Congrats losers.
Comment by Preston — May 13, 2008 @ 9:18 am
I just got through reading a post where someone, I won't name names, Misha had a problem with affirmative action. Let me give you the real reason why affirmative action came into play since as usual,you don't know the facts. Affirmative action came into play because the power that 'was' had to come up with a reason that qualified minorities who were well educated yet at the bottom of the employment ladder. The ceilings which were created to keep them out because of the qualifications, had broken all the rules(or should I say changed all the rules) to continue to keep them out. There was no level playing field, so Washington had to backtrack and GIVE THESE MINORITIES THEIR DUE. All jobs had to have a certain percentage of minorities, but they still had to be qualified. The catch? They could no longer find 'reasons' to not give them a job because they were qualified. I hate to burst your balloon, but people weren't getting jobs or education because of their race, they were not being KEPT from getting a job because of their race. If you would pick up a book sometimes and read it instead of depending on your biased media to tell you the facts you would know why affirmative action was created. In my opinion it still isn't doing it's job because racist people will always find a way to separate themselves from others. If it wasn't for caring people of all races I think this country would be destroyed by hateful people like you. It is not racist people who will jump to the rescue of all the calamities that are going on in the world. It is decent people who don't care about what race someone is. They just care about helping people who are hurting. Obama is calling for that type of unity, and that takes more that 'white, blue collar workers that are supporting Hillary Clinton. Good will eventually win over evil, which means God wins because God is good.
Comment by Yvonne — May 13, 2008 @ 9:28 am
ohio , wv , kentucky went for bush and look where it has gotten the country. you are a loyal clinton friend and i understand this however , alot of people in this country remember the impeachment in the house and rumors about sen. clinton herself commiting perjury . i hope our country never has to face again a scandal involving the clintons . obama has played by the rules of the dem. party and is leading in pledged delegates and elected delegates. democrats in this country are saying no to the clintons and i hope you stop appearing on tv because everytime i see you i am reminded of bill clinton and sex in the oval office.
Comment by pam,s.c. — May 13, 2008 @ 10:21 am
I love it. A white guy telling everybody that another white person is not a rascist.
Typical. Mr.Davis is the judge of who is, and who isn't a rascist.
Both Mr.Davis and HRC are drowning in their seas of entitlement.
Comment by Steve Shlafer — May 13, 2008 @ 11:24 am
Irarely dignify whacko haters who hide behind anonymity when they comment on my blog, substituting venom rather than facts - but I will make an exception for the race baiting anonymous "smilingjack" (the name itself is beyond irony).Isn't it interesting that this anonymous hater (hiding behind a made up name)calls me racist - but conveniently forgot to explain why those who criticized Mondale and Dukakis for losing Reagan Democrats and having little appeal to many white working class voters were not called "racist"? After all, Dukakis and Mondale were white - a fact that the anonymous "smilinjack" conveniently ignores. Does anyone wonder why he prefers to remain anonymous?
-Lanny Davis
Comment by lanny davis — May 13, 2008 @ 11:59 am
quote from Libertyskirt (#10);
"If you wonder why we should elect a man president who hasn't even been in the Senate for more than one term, you're a racist."
This crazy-assed neocon quote gives us good insight in to the mind of a neocon whacko. Jesus Christ, that is way out there, it's nuts. Libertyskirt is your stereotypical Refu@klican (ref; Coleman).
Comment by Lester — May 13, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Lanny–
Can u pls respond to the below?
While you argue significance of white working class voters, conversely, a similar argument can be made about the African American vote and without it–She loses PA, OH, MI, GA, FLA, VA and IL are both out of reach. A Democrat needs a large turnout and a minimum of 86% of the African American vote to carry those states. Do u think blacks will come out in great numbers to support HRC after she steals the nomination?
Comment by Theard — May 13, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Yvonne, thank you for your lecture on affirmative action. It was an eye opener, except that over 20+ year's in corporate world I've seen too many companies hiring minorities, qualified or not just to comply with regulations to obtain Federal contracts from the Government. And I won't go into college admissions… Enough said.
Comment by Misha — May 13, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
Isn't it ironic that the only folks who respectfully agree or disagree with Lanny Davis are conservatives, while fellow Democrats use expressions like "racist", "old man", "glad we won't see your mug on TV", "white guy", "worst surrogate in history", and my favorite from Brian #8 who called Lanny "Hillary's Reverend Wright". I think we are well past the Democratic vs. Republican debate, it's now people you can reason with against arrogant street thugs.
Comment by Misha — May 13, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Hey Lester, nice to know that you're still capable of saying really stupid things. I guess you're OK with the idea of a guy who's barely been in the Senate for one term automatically being made president of the United States. Are you really that dumb or do you take pills? Sorry if I had the temerity to think that a person should have just a little more experience before becoming the most powerful person in the world. But, then again, if I don't agree with you that must make me a racist, right? You Obama people are all the same. Please, get a life, and, while you're at it, a new (and more experienced) candidate for President.
Comment by Libertyship46 — May 13, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Lanny thanks so much for your support for Hillary without supporters like you to defend the unjustice of the new media bias which by the way are suppose to be true journalists and report an unbiased opiniated story.and the corrupt members of the DNC have made me want to leave the party to go independent.I am not racist but because the AA people have given 92-97 of the vote to Obama then I believe they are the true racists and makes me rethink my views on how I feel about an AA President that clearly stands for the AA comunity and follows a pastor like Wright.Since when did Obama get the magic number anyways he is no more the nominee then Hillary is right now.Let the convention decide.ANds I swear If the democratic party thinks more of the AA American communities over white working democrats and are afraid to piss them off and dont care about pissing us off then Im leaving the party.Why should an AA get a free pass because he is black.
Comment by Pat — May 13, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Lanny, just a few comments on your comment.
While I have argued with smilinjack on just about every point he's ever made and disagree with the one he made here, I want to take an issue with your crusade against anonymity on blogs, because this isn't the first time you've mentioned this. First of all, everybody understands that people make stronger comments while they are anonymous than otherwise, and anybody who's read any blogs for any length of time understands how to calibrate the comments. It's hard for me to believe that someone who has been in public life so long and has faced adversaries in court could really take a racist accusation from "smilinjack" seriously. I've been accused of being racist many times, especially by the sanctimonious Yvonne here, but it's not like I've lost my self-esteem.
Second, the blogs are a great equalizer. Unless people make truly damaging accusations, like like "Joe Blow from 123 Cherry lane has defrauded his bank and cheated on his wife", this is truly free speech at its finest. You could see themes developing that wouldn't appear otherwise, and the lack of filtering that people apply as compared to the situations where they can be "punished" for their words can only serve to shine the light of day on hidden lies and truths.
Thirdly, I hope all of this is a lesson to you about how liberal politics works. The pack mentality of choosing a target, accusing it of being against some politically correct holy cow, and then demonizing while dismissing any arguments to the contrary is just the typical left-wing mode of operation, from my perspective. Perhaps you should give some thought to becoming a conservative.
Comment by Igor R. — May 13, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
Misha-that is untrue. I (almost) always disagree with Lanny and I don’t think u can classify me as a conservative.
Disagreeing with Obama does not make anyone here a racist, but when I read things here that I find objectionable I respond in kind.
Debating his policies, experience (or lack thereof), or his perceived idealism –that's all fair game. Some of you bring no rational thought to this debate and as a result, are usually verbally flogged by other posters.
Igor—hate to admit it–I fully agree with your latest post (28).
Lanny— still waiting for that answer buddy..
Comment by Theard — May 13, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
Lanny, stop whinning!! She palyed the race card and it backfired.Now you want to say it's the media's fault. The media have been trashing obama for the past 3 weeks on the rev. wright stuff and and people saw right through it. So if you want to blame some one, blame your self and team clinton for trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.
Comment by Yvonne — May 13, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Lanny and everyone else,
Here is my question:
Why are people saying Obama can't win white votes? Please someone tell me in which states has Obama NOT gotten any white votes?
Obama has won Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Missouri, Illinois, Colorado ect….ect…
MANY of these states have VERy small AA population and yet he STILL won the state. That means he WON WHITE VOTERS
Additionally, even in states with higher AA populations he did not win the state with JUST AA votes, he ALSO won WHITE VOTERS.
Just because HRC may have won more white votes in PA and Ohio, in the Primary does not mean that Obama would not win these votes in the General Election.
The last I knew, this country was made up of ALL kinds of people, and you can;t just win the Presidency with working class white voters. You have to get young, old, men, woman, black, white, Asian, Hispanic ect…..
So why all this talk about white working class voters, as if they are any more important than anyone else?
And by the way, I AM a 30yr white educated HARD WORKING woman, and I caucused for Obama right here in Iowa, where HRC came in THIRD.
Comment by Jessica — May 13, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
For those who want the facts here is the link to the Obama 57 states article.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/barack-obama-wa.html
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 13, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
you're such a hack and a whiner!
Comment by Dan — May 13, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
Theard, thanks.
Comment by Igor R. — May 13, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
That anonymous whacko hater makes a very good point:
For you to claim that there is any justification for the will of the people to be over-ridden in order to bolster racism in America is ludicrous!
Comment by Phyllis — May 13, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
Lanny, it is ok. It is over and Bob Barr will get a lot of conservatives and will help Obama. I think he wants to help Obama actually. After all the libertarians like Jesse Ventura agree with Howard Dean, that Bush was involved in 9/11. Igor check out this guilty video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrtzWoESry0
Comment by Gary Anderson — May 14, 2008 @ 3:01 am
Since I no longer watch CNN, except for Lou Dobbs, I do appreciate your observations when you are on his program.
You are such a gentleman in an era of disrespect of others.
So, Mr. Davis, thank you for all you are doing for Mrs. Clinton's candidacy.
Comment by Steve Mc — May 14, 2008 @ 10:02 am
I congratulate Hillary for the tumping of Obama in states he can't win in general election.A/Amer.&some white radicals want to run the country,God forbid.A-Amer.always whinning about race-card as a scare tactic to other races.Other countries also have divisions of class & it will always be that way.A-Amer. want to be white,be true to yourself,don't try to be something you can't be.Whatever you say Hillary is theone with the brain to be president of this great nation.Obama needs more experience&his associations&surrounding himself with radicals(Marxism)makes him seriously flawed tobePresident of this great Nation.You AA that are so critical of this country then pack your bags & go somewhere else& see if you will have it as good.You are the racists,so shut your big mouths up.The Clintons have done so much for AA&how unappreciative they are is hard to believe.All Obama wants to deliver is charm(not charming to me I'm smarter than that)I see thru him&other people are starting to see it,I hope for the good of this country.Dem.Party will be making a big mistake with obama like the Rep.Party did electing Bush.I will vote for McCain(experienced)if obama is nominee.AAmer.stop playing the race card,whiners grow-up.
Comment by anonymous — May 14, 2008 @ 11:07 am
I entirely agree with Libertyship46 (comment #10). Apparently if one raises any concerns about Obama, then one is immediately attacked as being a racist. The only problem with this is that eventually people catch on & then they get tired of it.
To point out Obama's weakness with the white working class is completely legitimate. It would actually serve him and his supporters well to acknowledge this rather than attack or dismiss it.
Also, saying that Hillary has challenges with AA is not really an answer to Obama's problem with the white working class. Fact is, he has to confront this issue - just as she would have to confront her issues (esp. if she were the front runner). Why is it so radioactive & explosive to point out his weaknesses?
This whole process has actually been a boon to Obama - there's really no need for him and his supporters to be either arrogant and dismissive or completely ballistic at every turn.
Actually, thanks to such behaviour (and other things such as hearing "superdelegates" such as Donna Brazile speak) I now consider myself a former Democrat. In the event that Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I will not support Obama. Not because I am so blinded by my support for Hillary - but because a vote for Obama is not one that I would be proud of. Such intimidation tactics don't work with me, and I certainly don't see Obama as a Messiah.
Last I heard, Ralph Nader was running for president too (with Matt Gonzalez on the ticket as well).
Comment by Karen — May 14, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
Lanny,
You are part of the problem. Whining about media bias against Hillary (after Obama was dragged through the mud for 2 weeks)is laughable.You represent the old Clintonian "win at all costs" politics of the 90's. Move into the 21st century, stop your whining, and quit trying to change the rules!
Comment by liseycat — May 14, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Lanny Davis is spearheading the anti DNC position someone ought to throw him out of the Democratic party. He flatly stated repeatedly on Larry King that he was speaking for the Clinton camp. He stated that 2025 was not the number, even if Sen, Obama made it there before the convention it was meaningless. Of course he has his own set of rules, numbers and is thumbing his nose (speaking for the Clinton camp) at the DNC, Howard Dean, the rules committee, the Superdelegates, the delegates, the Democratic party. I think it is high time for someone to swat him like the gnat he has shown himself to be. Let's not forget that the Clinton camp voted to strip Florida of their delegates, Michigan too.
It seems Mr. Davis (speaking for the Clinton camp) is making the DNC look ineffective in enforcing the rules. The more he says "it is not about race" (at least 20 times on Larry King, the more it becomes abundantly clear to every African American that Mr. Davis has made and continues to make race not only an issue, but the overriding issue in his arguments.( just as it says in this Blog) Sure I have read his liberal history from Muskie to McGovern yet clearly he has shown something other than in years past. It is quite obvious that Mr. Davis is using race in his arguements.
If indeed Mr. Davis is speaking for the Clinton camp, then the wedge we have all feared has arrived, not through Sen Clinton's mouth but through the mouthpiece that is Mr. Davis. I will be anxious to see what the DNC's response is to 2025 not being the number as Mr. Davis claims ( speaking for the Clinton camp) and the math not being the math as Mr. Davis claims ( speaking for the Clinton camp).
Personally we will see if 2025 is indeed the number and if indeed the math is the math or if the DNC will continue to watch as Mr. Davis (speaking for the Clinton camp) drives the wedge into our party. Shame on you Mr.Davis, I expected this from the Clintons but not from you.
Comment by Spencer — May 14, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
To hell with the Manchurian candidate Obama who has just been chewed up and and spit out by the hard-working people of the heartland. 41%!!! Unbelievable, and yet he is adored by the media. How long can we pretend that this evil anti-American piece of scum cares about anything but wealth transfer and imposing his Marxist agenda with the help of the multicultural radicals? Was Wright not enough? Was Ayers not enough? Was Rezko not enough? Wash the Hamas endorsement not enough? Was Iranians calling him "one of us" not enough? When is enough? When are the people going to say "no we can't" elect this nightmarish smooth-talking con man because we hardly know anything about him and what we know is scary?
Comment by Igor R. — May 14, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
Is this the same Karen from the previous Lanny Davis posts?
Staunch Democrat..but "in the event that HRC does not get the nod, I will not support Obama"
Karen, Obama will not win every single demographic. Unfortunately, there are some voters who will never vote for him no matter what he does. His challenge is to expand his base and recruit new voters to cancel out lunch bucket bob and Jane. WV and KY have 13 Electoral College votes–if he wins VA–that cancels them out–no need for WV.
PA and OH…yes a problem indeed–but huge turnouts in urban cities like Pitt, Philly and Cleveland, coupled with enthusiastic new and younger voters–could cancel out the racist bubba voters.
Then you have CO, GA, NM, NV, MO and possibly NC.
You see…he has a new larger Electoral College map
I am sorry to say that HRC will not win the nomination-she already lost it in FEB when she and the bumbling Mark Penn had no plans after Feb 5th.
Did u actually say Ralph Nader? LOL…I also hear that Bob Barr is running on the Libertarian ticket.
Comment by Theard — May 14, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Spencer–the Clinton camp will make a last gasp effort on 5/31 and the race will be over June 3rd. I wouldn't worry about any 2209 foolishness.
Clinton needs her staunch supporters to pony up 20 mil to pay Mark Penn and co. and she is of course hoping for a miracle as well..in the end, the clinton brand is most important and she will make her exit to fight another day–hopefully in 2012
Comment by Theard — May 14, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Lanny, I don't have any problem with letting you know who I am. I'm a hard working white man who voted for Bill Clinton twice. And I voted for Obama this time around.
You seem to want to dismiss my comments because I didn't sign my name.
You claim that the voters in question won't vote for a liberal; why do you argue that they would vote for Hillary?
It's pretty transparent that you are claiming that they would vote for her because she's white.
If that's not your argument, then I guess that takes away any reason for Hillary to be the nominee, doesn't it?
I stand by my argument that your position is based on a racist view.
Jack McGuire
Carlsbad CA
Comment by smilinjack — May 14, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Jack,
You are a brave man!
Lanny, you are still a whiny man!
Comment by liseycat — May 14, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Post 42. Geez Igor–are we off our meds today?
LOL!!!
Comment by Theard — May 14, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
Hey Theard, you said to Karen (Post #43) that, "PA and OH…yes a problem indeed–but huge turnouts in urban cities like Pitt, Philly and Cleveland, coupled with enthusiastic new and younger voters–could cancel out the racist bubba voters." So you're pinning your hopes on big urban black crowds and young people so that you won't have to deal with those pesky "racist bubba voters." You Obama supporters are what you are, elitist, racist, snobs who can't be bothered with all those "rubes" in "flyover" country (you know, all those states like West Virginia). With attitudes like that, you're going to lose oh so badly. The only question is, are you going to lose as badly as McGovern or as badly as Dukakis? By the way, I guess I'm one of those "saps" that's clinging to my guns and religion, you know the kind, the one that Obama has nothing but comtempt for. Losers.
Comment by Libertyship46 — May 14, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
My point was and still is: there are some voters who will never vote for him, no matter what he does.
Barack has not forsaken the white working class:
See: North Dakota, Nevada, Washington, Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, Alaska, Virginia, Vermont and soon Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.
I doubt the above states are only comprised of egg heads and African Americans, yet he won them all.
Comment by Theard — May 14, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
Strike Nevada..think HRC pulled it out, but can we add Indiana? She only won it by 11k votes, hardly a mandate.
Liberty- I do not claim to know your socio-economic background, nor do I care.
WV has 5 freakin electoral college votes and does not poll well for him–why should he or I care about it? and if you are from WV…my apologies
Comment by Theard — May 14, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Theard, not at all. I'm actually being fairly repetitive about Obama. I think he is about as dangerous to the US as Hitler was to Germany in 1933, there is no reason to always make this point calmly.
Comment by Igor R. — May 14, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Hey Theard, sure, he's winning states like Idaho, North Dakota, and Kansas, real hotbeds of Democratic activity, states that have voted Republican for years. Big, fat, deal. Your initial comment about the "the racist bubba voters" pretty much sums up your attitude about people who don't really agree with Obama, or you. I'm also getting sick and tired of Obama supporters making snide, bigoted, remarks and then having to "explain" what they "really meant." Obama talks about people "clinging to their guns and religion" with such elitist contempt, but then he has the stones to say, "Well, that's not what I really meant." He listens to a racist, bigoted, pastor for 20 years and says in a speech in Philadelphia, "Well, that's not what Wright really meant." It was only when Wright personally attacked him that Obama threw Wright under the bus. Please, Obama is your typical elitist snob, cut from the same cloth as Adlai Stevenson, John Kerry, or Michael Dukakis. No wonder he can't get the support of working-class people.
Face it, Obama was better organized in a bunch of caucus states where only young Democrats and latte liberals live, like Wisconsin. That isn't going to help you in the general election, buddy, especially in states that usually go Republican, like Kansas. And the black vote isn't going to carry any states either. He may win Democratic pimaries in places like North and South Carolina because of the black vote, but it doesn't matter if he alienates all of the other people in those states. John Kerry got almost all of the black vote in the last election and what did it get him? And if you can throw away states like West Virginia (Obama last night didn't even bother making a concession speach about the primary there), you'll find that if you throw away too many of them then you're not going to have too much left. McCain is putting together a coalition of the Reagan Democrats and Independents that, along with hard-core Republicans, could destroy Obama, making Obama as big a loser as George McGovern. And as for Nevada, keep throwing away those Western states. Yep, Obama also lost California too, bud. Think a Democrat can win an election without California? So you keep sipping your lattes and denigrating anyone making less than $50,000 a year and you'll do just fine. By the way, what is George McGovern doing these days?
Comment by Libertyship46 — May 14, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
Igor, Face it. the media didn't put racist people like you over the top like you thought they would. And I guess Edwards endorsement of Obama tell you and others like you where to go with your 'white only' campaign.
Comment by Yvonne — May 15, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
Theard,
Yes it is the Karen from previous posts. FORMER "staunch Democrat" - although this is the first time I won't be voting for a Democrat. I never thought that possible, but I'm not the only one out there who feels this way.
If your hero Obama (btw. are you on his payroll?) had behaved differently, and been less arrogant and dismissive, this might not have been the case. But I guess he doesn't need my vote, eggheads and AA will do the trick - LOL!!!!!!
Theard, this is what Karl Rove wrote in the WSJ today (I'm not going to provide you with the link - you can look it up yourself this time): "Both parties face major challenges and have little time to alter the dynamics of the election to their advantage. Recognizing underlying problems and correcting them within a matter of a couple of months is one of the supreme challenges in politics. Whichever party does that fast and well will benefit come November."
It would benefit Obama and his crazed supporters to LISTEN to voters' concerns (which is btw. one of his campaign promises…one which he touts in every stump speech)instead of attacking and arrogantly dismissing them - because trust me, he'll need every vote come November.
The fact that he isn't going to get my vote wasn't a forgone conclusion….keep deluding yourself with that one. That feat was entirely due to his behaviour and associations, and his failure to clarify things in a convincing way.
Comment by Karen — May 15, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
P.S. Obama could start by (belatedly) making a concession speech for the thumping he received in West Virginia. By acting as if the 41 percentage point defeat didn't happen is yet another example of Obama arrogance towards those that don't agree with him. And I thought only Bush was that petulant.
Comment by Karen — May 15, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
I thought about ignoring your vitriolic tirade but decided to respond after all. I view this as my civic duty to present an alternate point of view.
I’ve always found it ironic that even though a Democratic administration would be more beneficial to working class whites making less than 50K—yet they continually allow themselves to be suckered by the GOP every four years. The problem with this electoral cycle is that the working class (white, black and brown) is probably out of work and without healthcare, and the GOP is busy talking about nonsensical issues. You see, it’s tougher to get voters distracted when he can’t afford to feed his family and his home is in foreclosure. (See GOP losses in IL, LA-06, and MS-01).
The GOP can always bank on those “racist bubba voters” to vote against their economic interests each and every time by giving them with a new bogeyman. Thankfully, there aren’t that many of them and hard working class voters who are comprised of white, yellow, black and brown are seeing the light, are voting against the politics of fear and division en masse. Interestingly enough, the MSM has given Obama every opportunity to call this out—and every time, he says—if some white voters choose not to vote for me, it is because I have failed to connect with them, not because of my race.
Since I am not running for office, let me be clear—
The working class is comprised of white, yellow, brown and black.
Not all working class whites are racist—but some are and will never vote for Obama no matter what. He knows this, but can’t say it.
Comment by Theard — May 15, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
The working class is comprised of white, yellow, brown and black.
And Red.
Comment by james d granata — May 15, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
#53
Igor hardly needs me to defend him but I don't find his statements racist at all: they seem more driven by ideology rather than race or religion.
Comment by james d granata — May 15, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Yes- Karen I read it:
The GOP Must Stand for Something
I also read the below in the same article:
“The string of defeats should cure Republicans of the habit of simply shouting "liberal! liberal! liberal!" in hopes of winning an election. They need to press a reform agenda full of sharp contrasts with the Democrats. Why is it tough sledding for Republicans? Public revulsion at GOP scandals was a large factor in the party's 2006 congressional defeat. Some brand damage remains, as does the downward pull of the president's approval ratings. But the principal elements are the Iraq war and a struggling economy.”
Did u also read this?
The Republican Panic
Yes I am returning the favor this time, even added the hyperlinks!
Ok back to your point—You say that he lost your vote by being “arrogant and dismissive” can you cite examples?
He has shown the utmost respect to HRC, passing on every opportunity to criticize her. In case you haven’t noticed, he has pivoted towards the general election-so yes, she is being ignored. Why would he waste time giving a concession speech—for what exactly? Instead—you wait until HRC is touting her win on the evening news, and BAM—here come John Edwards. The point is to slam the door shut and get her to concede by mid-June.
Comment by Theard — May 15, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
PS…NARAL endorsed him yesterday. Am I on Obama’s payroll? No..I guess I should ask u if u are Karl Rove’s press secretary—since u love quoting him.
Comment by Theard — May 15, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Hey Theard, you're probably one of those Obama bloggers from the MoveOn.org crowd, and for that I pity you because you're own snobbishness, elitism, and out and out bigotry is going to finish your candidate. Every time you open your mouth you keep denigrating the very people you claim to be for. You said, "I’ve always found it ironic that even though a Democratic administration would be more beneficial to working class whites making less than 50K—yet they continually allow themselves to be suckered by the GOP every four years." Oh so now we're too dumb to vote, is that it? We get "suckered" simply because we don't agree with your "Messiah," is that it? You have the stones to sit there and say that you're for "the working class" and then say that we're too dumb to make a balanced decision on who would be the best candidate to lead this country? Are you insane? Not only are you going to lose, you're going to lose by A LOT with an attitude like that. I don't know where you've been for the last eight years, but there has been eight years of constant economic growth under the Republicans and unemployment is still at around only 5%, A LOT lower than it was under the Carter Administration. You remember Jimmy Carter, don't you, one of the worst presidents in American history? He was the last Democrat with almost no experience to gain the White House, and we all know what a stunning success he was. And for the record, I'm not one of those ultra-wealthy individuals who raked it in over the past few years, like all you far-left loons seem to think are the only ones who benefited from almost 8 years of constant economic growth. I'm one of the WORKING CLASS, the "little people" that has a good, solid, job because of a robust economy. You know the type of worker I am, the type who is just too "dumb" to know any better and has to have an elitist, latte drinking, liberal like you to "show me the way" to a better life. Condescending idiots like you make me sick. You can't even claim that we're in a Recession, since we never had two consecutive quarters of negative growth. True, the economy isn't as robust as it was a few years ago, but it certainly is better than anything Jimmy Carter ever handed to us. Oh, I also forgot to mention Jimmy Carter and the Iranian hostage crisis. Remember that one? If you don't remember, that's the same country Obama seems to think we can sit down with for a pleasant conversation about Middle East peace. I don't know whether to laugh at people like you, or to cry, thinking that people like you are actually putting their faith in an inexperienced, elitist, snob like Obama. Obama can't "connect" with working-class people because he has nothing but contempt for them (guns and religion, remember). But you, Theard, seem to "understand" them very well, when you said, "Not all working class whites are racist—but some are and will never vote for Obama no matter what. He knows this, but can’t say it." Maybe they won't vote for Obama because he's just a lousy candidate? Did that ever cross your mind, rather than trying to blame it on racism? Probably not, because then you'd have to admit that you were WRONG, and latte liberals like you would never do that.
Comment by Libertyship46 — May 15, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Yvonne, these repetitive racist accusations without citing any evidence are just getting to be too much, now I'm even responsible for Hillary's words. Of course since you're a worthless turd that's probably ok.
Comment by Igor R. — May 15, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/14/according-to-obama-hillary-is-winning/
Comment by Jen — May 15, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Lanny, I want to thank you for being a true friend to our next President,Hillary.I respect her class and style thru these crazy times. I was so upset the other night on CNN they have gone to the dogs all of them DISGUSTING how they treated you and trash Hillary every show.We will rise above it all.Keep your spirits up.Some surprises coming up she will WIN! WIN!!!!!
Comment by DD — May 15, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
It amazes me when these "kids" say "give it up old man" and they fail to realize they need the older persons vote, the woman's vote "your girl" she's a woman let's get that straight and they continually insult anyone who is against there candidate. Now everyone's in a uproar about bush's comments and it's hysterical how nieve obama is since he did say in a debate that he'd sit down with no preconditions and then back stepped after he was called on it by his own party members. He doesn't know what he's doing and i'm not jumping on any train that's running out of control to what end only one can guess. Not voting for McCain but against Obama and I'd sooner go for a moderate before voting for this fool that the demos want to put up
Comment by DeeD1 — May 16, 2008 @ 9:19 am
Lanny, I don't know how you do it but you are the most brilliant and clear-spoken analyst of politics — an island of sanity in a sea of inane rhetoric.
Comment by jrterrier — May 16, 2008 @ 10:25 am
To all HRC supporters, I present Kubler-Ross
The five stages of grief:
1.) Denial:
Hillary hasn't lost! She can still win. Sure, she's lost the pledged delegate count, is getting crushed in super delegates who have pledged since Super Tuesday, lags McCain in the polls, is tens of millions in debt, and has just about run out of states, but there's still a path to victory! Quick, donate more! The only math that matters is the superdelegates!
She's going to get the nomination!
2.) Anger:
What do you mean West Virginia by its lonesome self isn't enough to guarantee Clinton the nomination? That's it! I'm voting for McCain even though I disagree with everything he stands for! Losing abortion rights will show Democrats the folly of letting the primary winner get the nomination! And those poor GIs in Iraq? Who cares, since Democrats insisted on letting the rules determine the nominee! How dare the superdelegates ratify the will of the voters by siding with Obama?
If she doesn't get the nomination, we walk!
3.) Bargaining:
Hillary Clinton for VP. She's earned it! Sure, she brings nothing to the ticket geographically, and offers nothing demographically that can't be offered by anyone else, but it's her or nothing! If you do the math, adding them up together makes them an invincible "dream team", even though we believe Obama is sexist and hasn't crossed the "commander in chief threshold". The superdelegates better force this on Obama!
If she doesn't get the vice-presidential nomination, we walk!
And that's where things stand right now. We've just got to get through the depression stage before we finally get to acceptance. We're slowly getting there.
Comment by Theard — May 16, 2008 @ 11:12 am
Dream on, Theard. You're backing the wrong candidate. Obama is the next George McGovern but, if he does somehow manage to get elected, will probably be as successful as Jimmy Carter. You never know, the superdelegates could still come to their senses and vote for Clinton at the Convention in August. After all, the superdelegates are not bound to anybody and can switch sides whenever they want. I thought the whole reason for having superdelegates was to prevent the party from nominating losers like McGovern and Carter? Who knows, maybe they really will do their jobs in August and support the right (and most electable) person.
Comment by Libertyship46 — May 16, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Theard,
I love it - whenever I point out a weakness Obama has, you point out a weakness someone else has as a "response". Very mature. (I'm referring to the Karl Rove article excerpt you provided - comment #59.)
Ok, let's talk about arrogant and dismissive tactics on the Obama camp.
- When Obama & his camp make grand claims about changing Washington/healing the nation/fixing souls it offends me personally. This is an election for a President, not for a Preacher. Not only does he make these grand and sweeping claims, but the beauty of it is that he can't back it up with legislation that has shown any courage on his part (e.g. a willingness on his part to reform or change Washington by anything other than giving pretty speeches and voting "present").
BUT, when someone points this out, they are branded a CYNIC and a subscriber to the "old politics".
Btw. if he couldn't heal his wife & Wright, and fix their souls - not much evidence he'll do it for America.
- Obama the uniter. Hmm….. McCain and Hillary have more bipartisan bills than he does. But does that deter him from falsely claiming that he is a uniter? No, I guess he has based this on the fact that he has energized young voters (well, Hillary has energized women voters and young voters such as me and my friends too btw.)? Has he based this on the fact that he is receiving over 90% of the AA vote (surprised?), and that white people are voting for him after all (wait…those can't be the typical white people though….they must be the latte-liberals).
So strange, a uniter and healer who sat in the pews and listened to paranoid hate filled speeches for 20 years. Btw. hate is hate - whether it comes from whites or blacks. But I guess he didn't know his spititual mentor that well after all - esp. since Wright dared to call Obama a pandering politician….which of course he just can't be.
BUT I guess only a RACIST like me wouldn't understand that Wright's hate filled sermons are completely justified in light of all that blacks have endured. Until, of course, Obama denounces them. Then it's ok for me to denounce them as well (I don't want to be the one spreading the poison after all).
- Obama's superior judgement. Because he gave a speech opposing the Iraq war to a crowd largely opposing the war. Hmmm…..how did his voting record on the Iraq war exactly differ from Hillary's again once he was in the Senate? Yes Theard - this is a fairytale…..look at his voting record for proof. And where was his superior judgement when it came to choosing the people he surrounds himself with? Paranoid, hate-filed extremists on one hand, and elitist, ultra-liberal snobs on the other who look down on people who aren't as "worldly and evolved" as they are. Just your old fashioned case of arrogance if you ask me.
Oh wait, I support Hillary, so I must be one of those BITTER UNEDUCATED RACISTS who doesn't get it - poor me. And poor me that I'm not worldly enough to consider the Muslim call to prayer "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth" (as Obama stated last year to the NYTIMES). Oh wait, I guess that makes me a ignorant bigot, who doesn't believe in appeasing extremists with some ingenious previously unknown arguments (which only the Messiah Obama knows).
- Obama listens to and will represent every American (as he has stated). Hmmm….great start by blocking a re-vote in 2 major states (I think over 2 million Americans there). A re-vote wouldn't have violated any DNC laws, and it would have given voters a chance to express their preference - since they really had no say in when the primaries would be held.
But I guess he knows he'll lose these states, so these voters really shouldn't be allowed to vote/re-vote. What sort of tactics are these? If Hillary had dared to do this, I would not support her. That's a promise because this is the most egregious violation of voter's rights (they did not choose the early primary date - why should they be punished for it).
He and his lawyers actively blocked a re-vote - even if MI FL are ultimately seated, it doesn't change this fact. This has nothing to do with democracy anymore, this is the worst kind of politics. I repeat, if Hillary had dared to do this, I would not support her today. He can't simply dismiss millions of voters because it doesn't suit him.
Theard I could go on, but I won't. There's a common thread here though if you care to notice. And Theard, I have no problems acknowledging Hillary's weaknesses - why can't Obama supporters do the same? Remeber, you can't constantly put down/intimidate the people whose votes you need (esp. since there are no caucuses in November).
Comment by Karen — May 16, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
Karen the points you raised have been debated over and over and over…
We'll just agree to disagree.
The primary battle is over, HRC is simply going through the motions through June 3rd. Its time to heal the Dem Party and there are no ill feelings–instead I place all the blame on the Clinton camp. They've created this mess and now must help fix the chasm between the camps. I hope you are reading this Lanny.
This has been a spirited fight, reminiscent of the Frederick Douglas-Elizabeth Cady Stanton battle over the right to vote. I am unsure whether you are a social conservative or more liberal on issues like abortion and stem cell research. However, I do remember your earlier posts where you addressed the lack of women’s rights in Muslim countries and if in fact you cherish those rights, I hope you won’t lose sight of the bigger picture and the potential damage of a neo-conservative SCOTUS with a clear majority.
Comment by Theard — May 16, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
The only damage being done here, Theard, is by the Obama campaign. Hey, if you want to support a weak, eletist, snob like Obama, that's your problem. You just shouldn't have to drag the entire Democratic party down with you just to prove the point that Obama can lose as many states as George McGovern. There is a long, long, time between now and August. One more Reverand Wright-type scandal and I think Obama is finished. I don't think the superdelegates want the Party to commit suicide in November and there's still time for them to come to their senses. If not, McCain's looking pretty good to people like me right now.
Comment by Libertyship46 — May 16, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
Theard,
You say "Its time to heal the Dem Party and there are no ill feelings–instead I place all the blame on the Clinton camp."
Sounds like a classic case of ill-feelings to me.
"They've created this mess and now must help fix the chasm between the camps."
Actually we'll have to agree to disagree on this one as well. I don't think the Clintons have created this mess. They have run a spirited campaign, not extraordinarily negative by most standards, and the race is and has been very close. If a fair race fought to the end is too much for Obama to handle, then I really pity the Democrats.
Btw. I would not abstain from voting for Obama because of Hillary. She would have nothing to do with it - even if she endorsed him.
At this stage it's about Obama, and Obama alone. And remember, he's up against the best candidate the Republicans could have chosen…..one who will appeal to a lot of moderate democrats. And with Nader in the race, some independents will be looking there.
As for myself, I support Hillary all the way. If she's not in the race anymore, Obama still won't get my vote (and we've spoken about the reasons numerous times). I don't know if I can vote for McCain, since I'm not a social conservative, but on the other hand he opposed amending the federal constitution to ban same-sex marriages etc…
I guess I have to look at his positions more closely. Either I vote for McCain, Nader, or I won't vote at all.
You said "I hope you won’t lose sight of the bigger picture and the potential damage of a neo-conservative SCOTUS with a clear majority."
My response would be that if the Democrats nominate the best candidate, they won't have to worry about such a scenario - with or without my vote. After all, FL OH PA should be no problem, right?
Comment by Karen — May 16, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Lanny Davis, you are my hero. Do you remember when President Bush, or was it Rove, called the democrats running against Mr. 90% popularity rating, the 7 Dwarves?
The Clintons have been treated miserably this time around, to the point where I have written several articles pointing out the real issues in this years campaign, including Barack Obama's camp cheating in the caucus state votes.
http://www.hillary-wins.com
Comment by Alessandro Machi — May 17, 2008 @ 1:18 am
if dems are havin system winner take all Hillary will already be nominee , but even in this position she will be nominee , trere are tree weeks and a lot can happen to obama , maybe rezko will come on agenda and a lot more stuff, just wait and see, we supporters of hillary will fight till she gets nomination and we are searching for obama secrets , just wait few days and america will be surprised what is obama , mark my words , this is open war for justice and truth
Comment by mario — May 17, 2008 @ 3:55 am
This should be a no brainer. I keep hearing experience is less important than change. Hillary epitomizes not just change but real tangible change. Because of her dedication and experience she has learned what works and what doesn't in numerous areas of service. Some call her a liar (sometimes even worse) but what lies has she committed that disadvantage anyone. What lies has been so great that it changed the world. Oddly the ones who accuse her have really never met her. She is the change we need. We need a president who is intelligent, caring but also willing to fight for what they believe to be in the best interest of those they serve. We know where she comes from. Contrary to those who have met her they cannot stop praising her caring, listening and determination to bring about good resolutions. Obama frightens many of us. His overall Illinois senate performance record is not fully known due to lack of adequate paper trail for that time. I also have friends who lived in the district he represented and cannot believe how he has fooled people to believe that he cares about the welfare of his people. The slumlords and slum areas are still there and were no better when he was there. The same feelings of fear were the same we had when the current Bush was running for office the first and second time. Both times we were right to be fearful. Obama skills as an orator would be great for speaking to improve civil and human right issue, similar to the task that MLK took on. With the world in the shape it is today he is not ready for the highest position of the USA. Many of us feel he is a puppet in a much larger political scheme. But his past accomplishments do not standout to be embellished. Hillary’s accomplishments speak for themselves. I could go on and on about Hillary, but I hope we have hit the real standout issues of qualification in this troubled world. I will say this, if it is change one truly wants Hillary would be true change. A woman running things the way they should and need to be run….
Comment by cynthia — May 18, 2008 @ 1:07 am
Mr. Davis,
Thank you very much for your support. You are a true friend and an intelligent person.
Senator Clinton is the most qualified candidate for the world's most important job.
Comment by Hale — May 18, 2008 @ 1:12 am
I agree. I am not voting for McCain but against Obama. I will be going from Democrat to Independent on June 3rd.
Comment by Sherry — May 18, 2008 @ 2:46 am
i agree with lanny davis. he is one of the best at promoting hillary and pushing back against the anit-hillary forces. GO LANNY!
Comment by terrrondt — May 18, 2008 @ 3:54 am
There are a bunch of race baiting assholes on this blog. The CLINTONS ARE NOT RACIST. You Obama supporters who brand everyone as racist who don't agree with everything about Obama or who decided to vote for Clinton instead are acting like nazis!!!!
The fact that Hillary Clinton connects with working class whites and acknowleges them as part of her coalition does not make her a racist. Attempting to explain there importance in the general election does not make her a racist either!!!!
Class is a huge issue in this country that the elitists don't want to talk about!!! The elitist Obamabots understand only one "ism", racism.
Whites as well as blacks and latinos are feeling the economic sqweeze. The problem with the elitists who dissmiss classism, particularly guilty white ones, is that they find it perfectly acceptable to look down on poor whites. They particulary feel entitled to do so because they too are white. Its not politically correct to look down on black people anymore, but poor whites are an open target. The superiority complex is the problem. Its the same place from which all the "ism" are borne.
Proof positive of this bigotry is cover of the Daily News here in New York the morning after the WV primary. It read "HILL BILLY TOOTHLESS VICTORY". How offensive is that? Its perfectly fine to pick on poor white people from one of the poorest states in the country. Can you emagine a comparable headline about Obama's landslide victory with poor black voters in Mississippi?
At least Hillary is willing to treat poor whites with respect and make them feel accepted by the democratic party. Whats wrong with that? Democrats used to care about the poor and working class, even the white ones.
The elitists like Dukakus and Obama can dismiss them and whinne later after losing the general election about them having voted against their own interests. But at the end of the day, if you snub them and brand them as ignorant, worthless, racist white trash, you'll never win them over.
Comment by Kendall Johnson — May 18, 2008 @ 4:03 am
Hello Lanny,
Thank you for being a positive force for my candidate.
The FAKE racism accusations remind me of the FAKE-RAGE used on Kerry during the Bush/Kerry campaign. Swiftboating…
The fakers will need to refer to that Kubler-Ross formula after Hillary wins.
Please stay stong Lanny. We need you. I am so proud of the work you have done for Senator Clinton.
Comment by Poochgirl — May 18, 2008 @ 4:23 am
Lanny, I so admire you. Didn't even know who you were 6 months ago, but you have made a great impression on me! Here's some more ammunition:
A full 97% of Obama's 156 delegate lead comes from wins in the low turn-out caucuses that attracted only 1,086,000 voters. So, 97% of Obama's "elected" delegate lead is a result of contests that attracted less than 3.4% of all of the votes cast to date. To compare "democratically," a primary-elected delegate represents an average of 12,283 voters, while a caucus-elected delegate represents only 2,073 voters – making caucus voters 5.9 times more important than primary voters.
Comment by Veronica — May 18, 2008 @ 5:01 am
Why I won't vote for Obama?
Both the Democratic party and the media helped push Obama ahead knowing that he is a weak candidate and that he can be pushed around. Because of this, the campaign was turned into a race/gender war. Blacks backing Obama for his color and women later supporting Hillary because she is a woman. In truth, she has always been the candidate to win by virtue of her intelligence and her strength.
The Democratic party not only loses their best candidate but many will be leaving the party as well.
Yesterday my 9 year old grand daughter said, " the democrates did to Hillary just what my soccer coach did. He put the boys in first and the girls on the side line. I was so amazed at her. I explained that was what we called sexism. If she got it….. who is being fooled?
Comment by Lisa Savage — May 18, 2008 @ 7:56 am
I all agreed Larry, the Democratic party looks not elect the strong and best candidate to defeat John McCain, instead, democratic is going to give another chance to Republan, becasue all smart people knows Mr.Obama is the big talk, he can not win the general election in November 2008, if democratic do not want to win, go ahead to embrace you baby.
Comment by Deann — May 18, 2008 @ 8:30 am
If the MSM had published the complete exchange between President Clinton and reporters in South Carolina, only snippets of which appeared and were milked as evidence of racial bias on the part of the Clintons, even readers unaware of their unblemished history on race relations could understand that, his comments were only intended to poke fun at reporters predicting Senator Obama's primary rout in SC portended the entire nation would support this upstart against his wife ('Well if you're so smart then how come Jesse Jackson won SC in 1988 but Michael Dukakis became the party's nomininee?'). A primary reason Lanny Davis often appears to be out on a limb in his support for Senator Clinton is that the MSM just isn't doing its job.
Comment by jbjd — May 18, 2008 @ 8:51 am
I personally observed the fact is: The media given a lot of pressure, hard time and try to damage Hillary all have done for her, but she has still standing to fight, I know that is the best person American Citizen need, because she has no enough money to buy the media to stand up for her, but Obama is totally different, he seems has the kind of special sources of funding to support him, he has spend huge of money to buy everything he want.
Comment by Christine — May 18, 2008 @ 8:55 am
GO HILLARY !!! Good Post Lanny
Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to win back our white house. Obama is NOT QUALIFIED!!! OBama will now skip KY - just like WV - guess he does not need those states -yet when he gets zero votes there he will cry racist - how ARROGANT!! Obama cannot seem to connect with the "working class" American voters - how can he expect to sit down and talk to terrorist nations???
The party leaders had to defend their WEAK candidate while his speech on foreign policy was being written for him so as not to look foolish.
IF obama should steal the nomination with the help of the DNC - MILLIONS of us will have to vote for McCain - he is QUALIFIED!
Hillary Clinton is the best choice for President of the UNITED States -
Hillary is QUALIFIED
obama is NOT QUALIFIED
Simple - FACT
HILLARY OR MCCAIN NEVER obama
Comment by Molly — May 18, 2008 @ 8:59 am
Lanny, I want to thank you for writing this. You are a true gem in the otherwise biased world of political punditry and media characters who have attempted to run Hillary Clinton out of this race, even though she is the best qualified candidate.
The utter disrepect that has been shown in this campaign towards a former First Lady and a former President of this country is appalling and sheds a whole new light on today's media. They have sunk to a such a level of dishonorable filth in their attempt to decide this election for the American people that we can no longer trust anything they say.
Intelligent Americans are disgusted at the race card that they have played and how they have tried to portray Hillary Clinton as a racist for simply quoting an AP article that SOMEONE ELSE WROTE. That any white person goes along with this is sad, and can only be explained by assuming that they have a serious case of white guilt for any racist action or thought they have ever had themselves, and feel the need to assuage that guilt by voting for and supporting an underqualified African American candidate for President. There is no other logical explanation.
Also appalling is that the DNC leaders will attack Bush for perceived slights to the candidate they prefer, but they have never once come out in defense of Hillary Clinton, someone who has done more for the Democratic Party than any of its current leaders, as the press and other party members revile her daily.
This is a bad time for the Democratic Party, and I can honestly say, I want no part of it. I have already switched back to Independent and if Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee, I will be voting for John McCain.
Comment by Foodforthought — May 18, 2008 @ 9:29 am
thanks Mr. Davis, you obviously provide a clear and articulate explanation for discussion, dialogue, review and consideration. As you witness, this is nothing that either the Senator Obama,his campaign, nor his supporters know how to engage in with anyone. So instead, they resort to lies, vile character assainations, cheating, and on and on it goes from the top to the bottom of their campaign this is their strategy -if you do not believe me check out the irregularities at most of the voting polls especially with caucuses and his previous election campaigns most all being funded by Mr. Tony Resko now on trial in Chicago for money laundering to begin with and Mr. Bill Ayers, an America hate and blow it up advocate! So there you have it the truth that Mr. Obama and his followers engage in this dishonest behavior needs to provide a great lens through which the rest of us undecideds can see through and say "NOBAMA EVER!!!" Go Senator Clinton I see the light and you are the one who will win the General Election in NOVEMBER… wake up America and vote this country in the right direction. Restoration, renewal, solutions for America and all of us folks in this great country and improved relations with other countries in the world!
Comment by mjoy — May 18, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Thank you Lanny Davis.
You are a true gentleman.
Comment by Kate Loving Shenk — May 18, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Listen up, people. I am about to make a racist statement. So get ready to condemn me.
75% of Americans do not support Barack Obama. 75% of Americans will not vote for him in a general election. Some of them are black. Many of them are white. Some are Jewish, some are Hispanic, some are Asian, and some are Arabic.
The reason that they will not vote for him is that they disagree with his policies, they feel he is racist, they feel he is dishonest and they feel he is inexperienced.
So I would ask everyone who leaves a comment after this one to point the finger at me and call me a racist for the vile and disgusting racist views I have shared in this post.
Thank you.
Comment by BillDemo — May 18, 2008 @ 9:46 am
Lanny….You seem like a nice guy….but when Barack Obama announced his candidacy in Jan of 2007 most people, particularly Blacks, didn't even know how to pronounce his name let alone support him. I had followed Obama since his speech in 2004 at the Dem Convention and was particularly inspired by his stance against the Iraq War….a move that could have been political suicide. I started our grassroots organization www.Blacks4Barack.org in hopes of inspiring and invigorating support for Obama, particularly in the Black community at a time when Hillary had 82% of the black support. Keep in mind…black folks LOVED Bill Clinton (the first black pres.) But as folks (of all races) learned more about Obama…the more they were inspired. While the more we learned about Hillary….there was more, not only disappointment but actual hurt due to her and Bill's racist overtones. Because of her own actions, Hillary has lost the black vote….possibly forever. And whereas the media acts like all blacks are for Obama just because he's black….that is absolutely incorrect. Fact is, all blacks were for Hillary at first ! But now the black community feels like the Clintons have slapped them in the face….and in the heart….and that may be unforgivable. Despite the unfortunate divisiveness, the time is now for us all to unite…For The Re-Birth of America !
Greg Jones
www.Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial, Grassroots Org…Dedicated To Truth !
Comment by Greg Jones — May 18, 2008 @ 9:58 am
It isn't that Obama cannot win the white working class vote due to total racism on the part of white people, it is that he will not sit down and talk to this demographic. Once the "bittergate" comment became public, he has failed to re-engage in a large demographic. His wife's comments of trying to draw similarities that she and Barak just finished paying off their Ivy league college loans; made a deal with the devil to buy a mansion they couldn't afford; and how difficult it was to find 10K to provide ballet lessons for their daughters.
His refusal to debate again after his poor performance reflects on his lack of courage and leadership ability. His refusal to engage in Town Hall meetings that are unscripted where he makes his mistakes does not go unnoticed. His 50 or rather 57 state strategy is