Now see, the Democrats who did not vote for
Obama have been villified and blamed by him and
his supporters and called names, for example
racists. They've been accused of "clinging"
to their religion and guns because of their
hard life, of not knowing who Obama was, of
being from a state nearer to Arkansas (even
when the state borders on Illinois) and
generally dismissed as, well, stupid, by the
Obama people. In other words, it's not his
shortcoming but theirs that they didn't vote
for him. I've never once heard anything like
this from Hillary or her supporters. Except
in defense of the charges being waged at them,
of course. I don't think that he can count
on those voters in November. A major truth
about the rural, Hispanic, religious, female,
and blue-collar Democrats is that they often
vote Republican in national elections. And
McCain is seen as a moderate, and he will court
them. Obama hasn't bothered. It's too late.
They DO know him.
Edit: I can't believe I forgot "bitter."
And, the topper, for me, has been the rampant
disrespect for Hillary as a woman, which no
one in the Dem party (except for Hillary
supporters) has protested.

But you don't really want to get into a comparison about which side has had its supporters dismissed as unimportant, I don't think. Trust me, many Obama supporters feel the same way about the Clinton campaign.

"Obama hasn't bothered." Don't think that is true. Obama has tried to reach these voters and personally I actually think he's done an ok job, it is just that Hillary is an awesome candidate and has a certain set of demographics locked up.

You can come up with a wide variety of reasons why Obama does better with his half and Clinton does better with hers, but ultimately it is because they are both strong candidates that appeal to different demographics. We get very emotional in these campaigns and it sucks to lose after 15 months of campaigning, but ultimately these feelings are simply to be expected.

There are basically 6 types of voters out there, depending on how they rate the three candidates. Most will be partisan, putting McCain either first or last. But there are people out there who prefer Clinton > McCain > Obama or Obama > McCain > Clinton. Near as I can tell, these two groups are roughly equal in size.

"Near as I can tell, these two groups are roughly equal in size."

Exit poll in WV showed only 1/3 of Clinton supporters
would vote for BO. Many more BO supporters said they
would vote for Clinton.

No Clinton campaign spokesperson has ever come out and said anything about not needing every voter or indicating that any cohort is no longer as important as it once was. On the other hand, Blacks for Clinton have been harassed and Clinton supporters have been called racist. Reports of Clinton supporters harassing Obama supporters are very low whereas Obama supporters (mostly younger people who don't quite understand that if they ever need us we should be treated better) are getting known for their tactics.

The reason for that is two fold. First, Clinton has spent a lot of time explaining why Obama would be a bad president and suggesting McCain would be better since he "passed the Commander and Chief threshold". People who believe Clinton are more likely to think Obama is a bad guy.

Also, you guys have basically lost, which makes you more emotional about all this right now. I'm sure I'd be more likely to feel I didn't want to vote for Clinton if things were reversed, but I'd wouldn't stay that way for long.

But please don't pretend that the Clintons haven't dismissed Obama voters. They have many, many times. Remember, we don't even need a president! Bill said so! At lets not bring up how many times a state that voted for Obama "doesn't count".

But I can't think of a single time Obama or any Obama spokesperson has claimed he didn't need women. Certainly not in the way Bill as dismissed us.

"People who believe Clinton are more likely to think Obama is a bad guy."

My inability to trust Obama came way before my support of Hillary Clinton. See Mark, there's a few of us who just happen to have supported his Senate run, and voted for him to be our representative in DC. We have come to the conclusion - as his constituents, and as long-time observers and victims of Chicago and Illinois politics - that he is simply more of the same that we get round these parts. Dealing, conniving, out-for-only himself and his own rise to power; basically, your typical Chicago Politician.

What has he done for us in the senate? Not a bloody thing.

He has yet to prove himself as this wonderful agent of change and hopey goodness. Word to the wise - don't hold your breath.

News flash: Hillary Clinton is still in this race. The magic threshold of a true 50 state strategy is 2210, and not 2025.

Your eagerness to anoint Mr. Hopeama with the nom is what we old, unnecessary women like to refer to as, "Puttin' the cart before the horse."

And frankly, O's little penchant for calling women "Sweetie" happens to show a deep seeded attitude of condescension toward women in general. And trust me, women voting in the general know it.

And please, for the good of 'the record', please cite these "many, many times" the Clintons (also, news flash, Hillary is the one running for POTUS, not Bill) have "dismissed Obama voters."

I won't be holding my breath, thanks.

I don't get where this comes from. I'm sorry you feel that way.

On the Clintons: it was "two for the price of one" back in '92 and it is two for the price of one today, and there is nothing wrong with that. Hillary was hugely important to the success of Bill in the '90s and the reverse would be true if Hillary won today.

I put one quote below on dismissing voters. You know all about certain states not counting. When one side keeps pointing out the need of white, lower income voters over and over they are dismissing everyone else, since everyone else has given the Obama the majority. (Actually, Obama does fine with these voters outside of Appalachia.)

Please quote the "sweetie" bit. I haven't heard it.

EDIT: never mind on the sweetie bit, I found it.

Here. 

I'm an old and unnecessary woman by virtue of being:

1.) White and 2.) Blue collar

Being female in this current environment of acceptable gender bashing of strong women (see excellent article by Julia Keller in Sundays Chicago Tribune - Devil in a Pantsuit: Media Portrayal of Hillary Clinton evokes and old and vicious cultural stereotype: Female Monster - here's Jens linky from Sundays thread) adds the third to this list. 3.) Female - it's ipso facto, as I fully support Hillary Clinton.  And don't try to spin it.  We know better.  We are not stupid.  

Really, your 'reaching out' and 'being nice' are way too little too late.  I'm fully outside of the O camp, and I shall firmly remain that way.  Right through November.  And I look forward to supporting whole heartedly, any and all who come forward to end his political senate career in IL come 2010. Actually, in the cesspool that is northeastern IL Dem politics, I'm hoping for a Republican.

And finally, if you're really sorry I feel that way (unnecessary) you'd be over at the Big Orange Dreamsicle or any of the other hundreds of pro-HopeyChangy blogs, decrying the sexist and violent crap that has been constantly thrown at my candidate BY OBAMA SUPPORTERS (with absolutely NO COMMENT FROM HIM OR HIS CAMPAIGN to tone it down, or behave like adults) since this all began. So, once again, you haven't heard it? Then you're not listening, little fella. (Thought I'd see how you like it. It doesn't feel good, does it?)

If you click on my name you'll see I've tried being nice and reaching out before. But you also see I've been a total failure at it, so take that however you choose. (I was, after all, trying to defend the worse attacks on Obama's character.)

You are correct that Obama hasn't come to Clinton's aid often enough when it comes to sexist attacks. Of course, until the recent Bush "appeasement" attack, I haven't seen Clinton come to Obama's defense very often either. Competitive elections tend to work that way, even when the competitors try to avoid it. Politics sucks some times.

As a side note, for me it is often hard to tell the difference between gender bashing and 90's style Clinton bashing. Many of the unfair attacks on Hillary are very similar to the attacks on Bill.

But I'm a guy. My guess is I've only picked up on only about 20% of the gender bashing while you've picked up on about 200%. That still means your closer to the truth than I am on it.

He calls it a "bad habit." I call it a mindset.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/obama-hold-on-sweetie/

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/4/4/obamas-sweetie-problem.html

How does Bill saying we don't need a president (words I don't remember, but whatever) equate to dismissing Obama voters?

If that's the best you can come up with, you really need to reexamine your victimhood.

Any words about which states count more than the others has NOTHING to do with dismissing Obama supporters. It has to do with the FACT that elections in this country are won in the electoral college. Some states will never vote for a Democrat. Mine for example (Kansas). So yeah, in a sense, the voters here don't matter much, whether we support Obama or Clinton. But Obama supporters in blue and swing states are anything but dismissed.

Obama may not say he doesn't need women, but what he does say speaks louder. Right, "sweetie"?

Or maybe I'm just offended by that because I "periodically feel down."

"the caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change." (link)

My point isn't to start a fight over quotes from both sides, though I was clearly ignorant and overoptimistic on that front. My point was that both sides have plenty of quotes to point at. Over 15 months of campaigning many things have been said, purposefully or not, that should not have been said.

But you are not and will not be left out.

What Bill appears to be saying is 1) working people have a harder time attending caucuses (that too is simple fact) and 2) working people favor Hillary because they NEED someone in office who can actually accomplish something. Obviously Bill believes Hillary can accomplish more as President than Barack can. Duh.

Again, you need to do better. Neither Clinton nor her campaign has "dismissed as unimportant" any demographic group. In fact, I think they have gone the extra mile for young voters, as evidenced by the way they carried that group in WV last week. You certainly haven't proven otherwise.

I still don't understand why you feel the need to come here and tell us how crappy the Clintons are anyway. What do you think you're accomplishing except making us dislike Obama more?

I still don't understand why you feel the need to come here and tell us how crappy the Clintons are anyway. What do you think you're accomplishing except making us dislike Obama more?

You are correct that this never turns out well. I didn't come here to tell you how "crappy" the Clintons are. I only wanted to point out Obama isn't dismissing anyone, even though it may feel like that right now as a natural result of the campaign. The point was both sides feel that way. The problem is no one accepts that both sides feel that way until I "prove" someone on the Clinton campaign said something that can be interpreted as dismissive. And as soon as I do that, I get attacked of calling the Clintons "crappy". Heads you win, tails I lose.

Oh well. Never mind. Hopefully some lurker gets what I'm trying to say even if those that post do not.

We gave you very specific reasons for feeling the Obama campaign has excluded whole classes of Democratic voters, some right from the horse's mouth. You haven't given us ONE. And you completely ignored my post of why Obama supporters might FEEL dismissed but they're either wrong or the reason lies outside the Clinton campaign.

Sometimes both sides in an argument may FEEL equally justified, but one side is right and the other is wrong. It's really as simple as that.

And please spare us the "poor me, you don't play fair" whine. You attacked the Clintons before anyone asked you for proof. Remember this up-thread:

First, Clinton has spent a lot of time explaining why Obama would be a bad president and suggesting McCain would be better since he "passed the Commander and Chief threshold."

Clinton NEVER said that Obama would be a bad president or that McCain would be a better one. That's a lie that the Obama campaign and its supporters tell. She said that she and McCain has passed a "commander in chief" threshold, suggesting that Obama would not be able to compete IN THAT SINGLE ASPECT with McCain as well as she could. Tell me, do you think that commander in chief is the ONLY role a president plays?

Well, at least you were honest about why you're really here.

Hopefully some lurker gets what I'm trying to say even if those that post do not.

It's call trolling.

If I were trolling I'd have come out swinging, but I have not. When asked for specifics or given claims...

And never once has anyone given a reason women voters are being dismissed by the Obama campaign...

And if you think it is possible for someone to be a bad Commander in Chief but still a good president I'd have to disagree...

never mind

There is no way out of this box, is there?

I'm just part of a cult. I can't think for myself. I'm brainwashed.

What Bill said was as divisive as his fairy tale comment but true in that caucuses are not representative of the electorate. Working people have jobs, old and disabled are physically challenged and mothers do not have the time. The end result is process that rewards people without physical or time constraints not the average Joe and family or the elderly both of which support HRC. The part about not really needing a president I assume means (which we are allowed to do) that these people are not in as great of need.

Considering Obama has had, and I will use the term as it applies, the liberal media, playing and active role in his campaign from the moment it started, I do not think this has been a fair campaign.

He, his press core from MSNBC along with party elders like Kennedy (may he regain his healthy quickly), Kerry etc. have cpllectively raised their middle finger at us from the beginning of the election.

Air America and most of the rest of progressive radio. 24/7 Obama advertising, almost without exception.

But I can't see that it was anything our "side" did or said to cause the feeling. 

You wrote: 

But you don't really want to get into a comparison about which side has had its supporters dismissed as unimportant, I don't think. Trust me, many Obama supporters feel the same way about the Clinton campaign.

So what are the feelings based on? 

In the case of African Americans, I think they have long felt taken for granted by the party, and in many if not most cases, their feelings were totally justified.  They have been expected to turn out and vote for every white candidate who has ever been nominated and now, when there is finally a viable black candidate, many of us are arguing that he cannot win so we should nominate the white candidate and once again expect them to vote for her.  If this scenario comes to pass, they're bound to feel "dismissed as unimportant" but I hardly think you can blame the Clinton campaign for it.

In the case of younger voters, if they feel "dismissed as unimportant" I think they're just plain wrong.  Every Democrat I know, no matter who they support in this election, considers young Democrats to be the future of the party and wants their numbers to be as large as possible and their participation as active as possible.  You may occassionally hear the observation that young people do not turn out as reliably as older voters and that's just a fact.  But that doesn't mean we don't want them to.  And again, you can't show me anything put out by the Clinton campaign to discourage these voters or to label them "unimportant."

I do think that many young folks, because they are fairly new to the process, are more likely to believe what the media tells them, especially about how Obama has already won the nomination -- notice how "pledged delegates" are frequently referred to as "elected delegates" or even "earned delegates" on TV and radio?  So they may see ANY continuted opposition from the Clinton camp as an effort to overturn "the Will of the People" thru back-room politics that renders the voters (them, but not the people who vote for Clinton) "unimportant."

And finally, we are left with the "latte liberals," "eggheads," netroots... whatever you want to call them (and I actually consider myself all of those).  I don't know that these people have been "dismissed as unimportant."  But I do think that Clinton has played more to the middle and Obama more to the left (even tho his positions on issues are not very left at all).  Dean did the same thing, and his policies were centrist in a LOT of ways.

There has long been a rather bitter debate within the party of whether it's better to try to pick up a majority from the center of the political spectrum, or to energize the base to get them to turn out in large enough numbers to overwhelm the other side.  The last Democrat to win the Presidency definitely went for the middle, but otoh, he never won with a popular majority either.  And while Al Gore got that majority, it was the abandonment of the far left that cost him the election.  Certainly the Republicans have done better by pandering to the far rightand not worry so much about the center.  Many liberals believe that the American public is really farther to the left on issues than they realize, But if they don't see themselves that way, the point may be moot.

I dunno the answer, but it's a legitimate question.  Point it, it's also an ideological question, not one of demographics.  So if the left wing feels "dismissed as unimportant," it's because their ideological view is considered wrong (or rather, unelectable) by a majority of political strategists.  And that's something totally different than what we're talking about in this blog.

That said, I think that when Hillary started this thing, she thought she'd win the nomination in a walk, so she could afford to appear more centrist, looking forward to the general election and needing to combat the public perception that she is a liberal extremist.  Obama otoh had an up-hill battle to gain the nomination, so he had to lean to the left, knowing that he might pay for it in the general but needing to take that chance.  If the roles had been reversed at the beginning of the race, we might be seeing a different dynamic altogether.

the Democratic Party? All the gains that whites get, they get too. Plus they've had affirmative action to help level the playing field. The idea of giving them a black candidate seems patronizing to me, and the position of President is too important to be treated like a beauty contest. We're all Democrats and need to work together for the common good, but the BOers have driven large factions away with sexist, degrading insults and vile, condescending threats. I can still scarcely believe that such rhetoric is heard on national TV day in and day out. It's like listening to the Klan spuing out hateful, racist bile against the groups THEY choose to despise. How on earth can I still feel welcome in a party that is increasingly making me feel unworthy and unwanted? If Hillary is rejected, so am I.

It's not a matter of "giving them a black candidate." It's whether the eventual nominees, white or black, have made any effort to win black support. Until Bill Clinton came along, there really wasn't much of an effort at the national level. Usually it had been just the opposite -- throwing black concerns overboard in an attempt to not appear too "liberal" to the general (white) public.

Whatever dirty tricks Obama has used to divide the party along racial lines does not negate the fact that the black community has much reason to be angry.

One reason Hillary Clinton pretty much had the black vote wrapped up, until Obama started twisting her and Bill's words and playing the victim, is the record that Bill had on paying attention to their issues and interests, To her credit, she contines to pay attention when she could have written them off with a "They're not gonna vote for me anyway," because it's the right thing to do, but also because she will need their votes in the fall.