Red state reality and dem mortality

Some interesting web comments on Egan's article on Obama Red State victories:

So why does a white, conservative “ditto-head” boomer male such as myself like Obama and will probably vote for him? Especially since he’s my second choice after Fred Thompson? For a few reasons. First, Obama seems like an honorable man. A throwback to the kind of libs a conservative could respect, like Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, Jack Kennedy, Harry Truman, et al. When the chips are down, Obama will do the right thing. Second, I really like his wife Michelle. Forthright and very intelligent. Not easily intimidated by anyone. A real lady. Traditional liberals aren’t a problem with me so much as corrupt politicians. McCain and the Clintons have had their snouts in the public trough far too long.

— Posted by Leon A Davis

Oh, don’t expect the Democrats to win. Deals will be cut in the smoke-filled back rooms, Hillary will be given the nomination that she feels so entitled to……..and that will in one stroke stop the enthusiasm of the newly re-energized party, and bring together the Republicans with their loathing of her (really both the Clintons), and in November, we’ll have “more of the same”: John McCain for President.

It’s a shame, An Obama nomination offers the Democrats a rare chance to both de-fang the Republicans, and energize the Democrats, and most importantly, to win; but instead, we’ll have more of the same: the Republicans governing for (at least) another 4 years…and by then, this country will be busted……more wars, more debt, more foreign policy brought to us by the lobbyists; the dollar sunk to new lows………and all those freedoms that our forefathers fought for……..gone.

— Posted by kevin

Thank you for posting this editorial. I live and caucused in Idaho, one of the reddest states in the country. This is the first time that I have felt participating in Idaho politics counts more that the one party Republican-dominated system it has been since 1980. This was first also the first time that all 44 Idaho counties participated in the Idaho democratic caucuses since 1980, since recently only 2/3 of all counties even held a democratic caucus. Last night, Obama supporters blew out Clinton supporters at the largest caucus in the nation at such a high margin that she did not have enough support to gain any delegates (in Ada County with ~8,300 democrat voters). Part of this is because our caucus date was earlier, on Super Tuesday. Most of this is because the grassroots organization in Idaho that started one year ago that culminated in the Obama visiting the most populous city in the state Boise on February 2, attracting 15,000 people in a large state that doesn’t even have 1.5 million people. Statewide, we voted for Obama 80% while Clinton only got 17% of the vote.

Why are democrat Idahoans so fervently attracted to Obama? He is equally matched with Clinton with experience, but he offers a different, newer message that promises to clean the White House of one of two political dynasties that have been the Prez or VP since 1980 (VP Bush, VP Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush). He has had good judgment with the issues he has dealt with and holds a high bar for political ethics. Edwards and Obama are also the only 2 top tier candidates that have not accepted PAC donations. However, the real reason for me is the underlying fear that a Clinton ticket in November will sweep the crippled Idaho democrats of the few political gains we have been able to make for the past 28 years. This is no small thing–in the 2006 gubernatorial race we had the 3rd contestent on the ballot being a man who had legally changed his middle name to “pro-life”–Marvin Pro-life Richardson. Also important, the Idaho state legislature did not pass day care standards in 2007 since “a women’s place is in the home” (quoted form a state legislator). For Idahoans, a vote for Obama yesterday was a vote for an inspiring, qualified candidate and an attempt to regain a two-party system in the state. Other people living in blue states or even purple states may think that what I am saying does not affect them, but it does. Obama is more likely to take purple and red states than Clinton–even if he doesn’t win most of them, this will put Republicans on defensive footing in states they haven’t had to spend money in to defend for decades. If Clinton were on the November ballot, the few democrat politicians in this state would be fighting for their political livelihood. This is why 70% of all Idaho’s democrat politicians endorsed Obama, most of them before the Iowa caucus. This is also why many politicians in other red states have also endorsed Obama. A Clinton on the ticket may yet get her into the White House, but I don’t think she would have a majority of democrats in the House and Senate like Obama could get. Real change is an inspiring leader who has a supportive House and Senate to push legislation through.

— Posted by Beth Colket

Super Tuesday

Obama crushed Clinton in the middle of the country and in the West.

Look at these % margins for Obama:

Colorado 67 to 32

Idaho 79 to 17

Kansas 74 to 26

Minnesota 48 to 24

North Dakota 61 to 37

Utah 57 to 39

Alaska 75 to 25

Hillary won NY, MA, and CA, but these blue states will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is in November. The states that Obama won will clearly not support Hillary over McCain! ... Oh, and she did win Arizona, McCain's home state.

Youth for Obama

I had to post this reader comment from a thread on the Washington Post:

In my small-town caucus district, the Obama supporters -- all of them, as far as I could tell -- were sincere, informed, passionate liberals.

They were also very young -- which is something you Baby Boomers would actually be excited about if you weren't all so narcissistic. An influx in passionate young voters is the equivalent of a political party winning a lottery jackpot; IT IS THE SINGLE BEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN TO A PARTY.

Honestly, do you folks realize how curmudgeonly and out-of-touch you sound? How smug and condescending? Are you truly missing the irony in, e.g., condemning young voters as ignorant by posting the illiterate and credulous stuff on this thread? ("Lou Dodds [sic] on TV said Obama voters didn't know nothing about politics! Yung voters is dum-dums!")

We young voters aren't stupid, ignorant, or indifferent to the significance of this historical moment. As those Dartmouth kids in the interview explained: we just don't like Hillary Clinton!

Why should we vote for someone we don't like? Why should we be shamed for it?

I'm happy to explain why Obama is substantively a much stronger candidate than HRC -- but in my experience of the past two weeks, the maudlin, self-pitying Baby Boomers don't really want to have that conversation; they just want to lament the fact that young voters have seized control of the party's destiny.

Well, start getting adjusted, old folks: we ARE in control. And we aren't giving that control back to you -- ever. It's our party now, and our movement. And Obama is going to be our young president.

The good news for you is that the powerful progressive movement Obama's arrival presages will mean that you'll get the health care you need over the next 30 years. It will also mean several -- not one, but several -- woman presidents in the country's near future. (Who knows: maybe one of them will be a lesbian! The young voters who are storming the gates of the Democratic party certainly wouldn't mind.)

In spite of the condescending "heart-over-head" line that the punditry has been repeating ad nauseam, we young voters know exactly what issues are important to us, and who is likeliest to make some headway on them.

And I'll be frank: the "dynastification" that the student in the article worried about is a substantive political concern, one that's connected closely to the alarming class divisions that began to open up under Bill Clinton and grew wider under Bush II.

HRC's cynical, cowardly support for the Iraq War is also a substantive argument against her leadership. Her support for the resolution naming Iran's armed forces a "terrorist organization" proves that she's learned nothing from her catastrophic error, and cannot be trusted at the reins of American foreign policy.

Stop resisting and belittling the Obama revolution. This train's leaving the station with or without you. We'd rather have you all along for the ride -- but we're ready to make history without you.

Thanks, Mymangodfrey!

New Conservative Agenda

The NY Times' David Brooks on the new conservative coalition suggested by Huckabee's success:

Huckabee understands much better than Mitt Romney that we have a crisis of authority in this country. People have lost faith in their leaders’ ability to respond to problems. While Romney embodies the leadership class, Huckabee went after it. He criticized Wall Street and K Street. Most importantly, he sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.

Instead:

A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.

Click here for the original article.

Voices in your head, Part IV

A series of quotes that explores the various aspects of mind and their usefulness.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

- Albert Einstein

Huckacide? Nice try.

This was my reply on www.realclearpolitics to Rich Lowry of the National Review, who, in a thin and wishful opinion piece, failed miserably at trying to present Mike Huckabee as the GOP's Howard Dean of 2008:

It was a mediocre try, the article falls apart for so many reasons. Below are Lowry's quotes with my comments:

"Like Dean, he is rising toward the top of polls in a crowded field based on his appeal to a particular niche of his party."

-Is it just a "niche" of voters that are placing him in the lead by 12 pts in Iowa and almost 8 in South Carolina. Since when is a "niche" a majority?

"Social conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can't be the message in its entirety."

-Also, completely off as far as describing Huckabee. Social conservatism is by far not his only message (but a great one for the GOP as the article mentions). He also believes strongly in investing in education and innovation in order to maintain our much threatened economic vitality. Also, he's in a freakin' rock band.

Huckabee has declared that he doesn't believe in evolution. Even if there are many people in America who agree with him, his position would play into the image of Republicans as the anti-science party.

-Um, the GOP doesn't need any help on that front--stem cells, evolution, global warming.

In a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in September, Huckabee struck notes seemingly borrowed from Barack Obama, hitting the Bush administration for its "bunker mentality" and strongly supporting direct talks with Iran.

-No advisers huh? This is from a recent AP release, "nowhere is the change in thinking more advanced than in the US military, which is pushing for greater diplomacy, economic aid, civic action and civilian capabilities to prevent new wars and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan." Wow, could it be that we may have a president that actually listens to the experts in the military as opposed to only hearing what he wants to?

Here's the article link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071213/pl_afp/usmilitarydiplomacy

-I don't support Huckabee, but I think contrary to what Lowry and the National Review wish, his support is only going to grow. Who Huckabee represents is not the fundamentalist pharisees, but the everyday, human, intelligent main-stream Christian.

This article was weak, I can' t believe that's all it takes to write for a national "journal."

p.s. If anything makes Huckabee vulnerable, it is the corruption, that almost defies belief, of Arkansas state government. It did Bill Clinton no harm however. If anything, I'd say Huck is the Repub's Clinton, not Dean.

Lowry's "article" can be read here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/huckacide.html

Voices in your head, Part III

A series of quotes that explores the various aspects of mind and their usefulness.

"All models are wrong. Some models are useful."

- George E.P. Box