home

Obama's Age Problem: He's Not Connecting and There's More of Them

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:36:45 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Barack Obama is not just lagging among blue collar voters, he's got a big age problem to overcome and his popularity with younger voters isn't enough compensation:

In the Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries, Obama lost older whites by 30 percentage points, while Clinton split white voters under age 30 in both critical contests. Obama’s senior problem is even greater among Hispanics. The Illinois senator lost older Latinos by 40 to 60 percentage points in Texas, New Mexico and California.

....Older, college-educated voters consistently favor Clinton, though by small margins. Obama’s weakness is largely among seniors without college degrees, whom Clinton wins 3-to-1.

More...

Wisconsin:

Even in Wisconsin, where the white working class moved to Obama, he lost whites age 60 and older by 9 percentage points.

These voters constitute a quarter to a third of Democrats in nominating contests — where after Iowa, the youth vote largely ranged from 12 to 16 percent of voters.

....[while] Clinton lost white females overall, she still won 56 percent of those women 45 and older. Clinton’s support is even stronger among white women who are seniors.

PA and Ohio:

Clinton won a stunning seven in ten white voters age 60 and older primarily because the gender gap diminishes to Clinton's favor with older voters.

....In Pennsylvania, exit polls show that Obama won 54 percent of white men under age 45, while Clinton won 61 percent of the older white men. For white women, Clinton won 63 percent under age 45 and 69 percent 45 and older.

On women,

Seniors are more likely to be women and less educated. So Clinton’s strength with both groups is only heightened among older voters.

....Democratic white women in particular, from the early Baby Boomers to those born before women could vote, are also more likely to be feminists. Many of their lives are in part defined by the women's movement.

....In most contests, white women of all ages remain firmly with Clinton. But Obama’s strength with white male Democrats stops near middle age.

How does this factor into the general election with McCain as the opponent?

< Karl Rove Gives Obama Six Pointers to Recover and Win | Late Night: Summing Up Rev. Wright >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Age Problem: He's Not Connecting and There's More of Them | 167 comments (167 topical)
    Finally (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:45:01 PM EST
    age and education have some power again. Whew!

    Maybe going is doing away with social security, wishing anyone over 50 would just die off, dirty hippies, get out of the way - it's our turn, we are the ones.

    And maybe even Bill Clinton will survive.

    Oh He Will & Will Help Bring Back AA Vote (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:07:52 PM EST


    Parent
    This Is A Big Part Of It IMO (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:13:06 PM EST
    To date, Obama or his supporters have shown no respect for seniors. Obama has spoken unfavorably of the 60s through the 90s. It has pretty much been we are the new generation so just shut up and get out of our way.

    Parent
    you know.... (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by sas on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:34:03 PM EST
    they are young and know it all

    Parent
    We are the ones we've been waiting for (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:41:12 PM EST
    Say what? BO and his followers (not supporters) are out of touch.

    Parent
    Yup... (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by k on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:41:01 PM EST
    My mother is 80 and is highly offended by the lack of respect shown for both women her age and eduction. My mother only made it to 10th grade but she is one of the smartest women I know. I always tell her there is educated...and then there is intellegent.

    And my mother agrees...she says that the only part of her body that hasn't gone south is her brain.

    She came of age during the 40's when most husbands were off to war and the women were  working and living independent lives. My mother is the original feminist.

    To be dissed as too old to matter ticks her off and the sexism has her climbing the walls. There is no way Obama gets her vote. For the first time ever she'll stay home.

    Parent

    Your mother is right (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:46:26 PM EST
    I've met people extremely smart (my sister for one), with little education, but could look at a complicated problem and find its solution in no time.  My sister had a brain like a computer.  I went to college because times had changed by the time I was old enough to get an education.  She was looking at opening a business and figured in her head a break-even-point that is taught in cost accounting. Smart uneducated people are more impressive than the schooled type because their knowledge is from their bones and experience.  Can't beat that.

    Parent
    Your comment actually (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by k on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:36:08 PM EST
    makes me sad. A lifetime of experience should never make one feel invisible.  My rowdy mother, on the other hand, feels empowered. For her, not voting is making more of a statement than voting this time around. As she said with hands on hips...they can't kick me to the curb without consequences!

    Mommy dearest makes me laugh.

    Parent

    Your Mom (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:40:19 AM EST
    sounds like my Mom.  Seniors are SO under-valued.  I am so glad they show their strength at the ballot box.

    Parent
    There is a Spanish saying, (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:52:08 PM EST
    "schooled but not educated."

    Parent
    My Mom (5.00 / 8) (#172)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:34:30 AM EST
    is 74 and she gets very upset about the sexism against Hillary.  We are Chicanos and in our culture, moreso than not, the woman is the head of the household, or, rather, carries a lot of influence.  So my Mom sees it as an insult to Hillary's resolve and her position in the family structure.

    She also fondly remembers 1993-2000.  WAY too many seniors remember those as pretty darn good years.  So when BHO goes off and blurs the distinction between the Reagan/Bush years to Clinton 42, they take HUGE notice.

    My mother already said that she will not give up her vote but will write in HRC.  I laud that action.

    Parent

    yep (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by jedimom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:47:03 PM EST
    I was told that very thing 1/22 my first blog day thereisnospoon on MYDD told me it was their party and we Gen Xers with our IRAs and our Iraq wars were done..and die already get out of the way something like that
    I was shocked to the core

    Parent
    exactly! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:17:16 PM EST


    Parent
    A savvy study of this months ago (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:37:25 PM EST
    was on pollster.com -- it's about age and class (for which a main determinant is your other factor, education).  Dem pollster Maggie Ormero called it 'way back in January.  

    A line of hers then, just after New Hampshire, about the media focus on gender was predictive: "While the press continues to assume voters view Clinton through the lens of their own gender, perhaps it is the press's own lens that is clouded."  (Be sure to click through the links in this piece to her earlier analyses, too.  She's worth reading, easy to comprehend and with good lines like that.)

    Parent

    Makes you wonder what is going (none / 0) (#88)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:13:42 PM EST
    on in the journalism curriculum these days.

    Parent
    He set the tone for this early in his campaign. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:43:35 PM EST
    I recall commenting on this early on.  He flaunted his youthfulness, the support of the younger generation that made the middle and older groups feel obsolete.  He did not take the time or did not show enough concern for the various groups that comprise society. Had he given this thought, instead of just having the change/hope slogans, his rhetoric would have signified this.  But obviously he never had other groups in mind except his own generation and younger.

    It is too late now.  It comes from an inner attitude which you either havve by the time you reach adulthood, or you don't. There is a saying, "Words out of your mouth come straight from your heart."

    Parent

    Yeah! Been there, done that! (none / 0) (#85)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:11:41 PM EST


    Parent
    One thing is for sure: Stop the McCain age bashing (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:45:09 PM EST
    It would maybe work if Hillary was the nominee, but if its Obama, it only plays into the image that all his supporters are bunch of clueless, young punks.  Geez, the guy is about the same age as Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Tom Harkin, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein... well, most of the U.S. Senate is over 60, so you get the idea.

    The problem with McCain are not (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Gabriele Droz on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29:08 PM EST
    necessarily age-related.  It's his forgetfulness of facts (or his lack of doing the homework), and the statements he puts forth, lacking an understanding of who Shiites and Sunnis are, etc. etc.

    Whatever the reasons are for him not "knowing the territory", it's a lack of something, surely, no matter where it came from.

    In his case, I don't think it's as much of an age issue (but then again it might), as much as an issue of not knowing the territory.  Either one should be examined further.

    Parent

    Age matters and old people know it (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:52:26 PM EST
    It doesn't have to be explained.  But people will ignore the age problem, like the voters did with Reagan because the Democrats could not win the blue collar voter, like BO.  The Clintons understand that if the blue collar is not happy, the Democrats cannot be happy.

    Parent
    I just read about this at CBS's webpage (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:47:36 PM EST
    Seniors are the most reliable bloc of voters. Always.  Cannot win a thing without these important group of people.  Seniors know that voting is the bedrock of our country and take it very seriously.

    O/T...looks like NC's governor is going to endorse Hillary tomorrow!  Great news for HRC!

    Aw. (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:48:57 PM EST
    early Baby Boomers to those born before women could vote, are also more likely to be feminists. Many of their lives are in part defined by the women's movement.

    That made me smile. And made me sad at the same time.

    Excuse me, baby boomers were born after WWII (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:56:04 PM EST
    I know, I'm one.  Women got the right to vote in 1920 (I think). I don't care to look it up.  Most women living today have been able to vote.

    Parent
    My mom was born in 1918 (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by echinopsia on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:26:34 PM EST
    She was born not able to vote. She is VERY aware of this.

    Parent
    It referred to a range of ages (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by cymro on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:39:15 PM EST
    Since the baby boom is usually defined as 1946-1964, the age range included in "baby boomers to those born before women could vote" can be interpreted as referring to those born before 1964, and all the way back to those born before 1920.

    In other words, anyone older than 44.

    Parent

    but he wins the black vote big... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:49:40 PM EST
    and that's gonna carry him in NC

    Well, Wright issue (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by delandjim on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:27:31 PM EST
    Yes I agree he has been getting 90+% of the AA vote. BUT on the cable shows as they talk about this Wright issue, they are touting polls saying 64% of the AA people are not offended or upset about Wright.

    BUT I figure that leaves 36% who ARE UPSET. That may have an impact.

    Parent

    Any AA vote that HRC takes is a great win (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:57:44 PM EST
    and very bad for BO.  That's his base.

    Parent
    Rock and hard place... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by delandjim on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:03:28 AM EST
    Yes and because of this he has a real problem. I have not heard a single political consultant, strategist, operative etc. say anything but disown this, disavow this. And why doesn't he take a stronger stand against this.

    I think I may know, if he does he stands to alienate a fair amount of the AA that are on Wright's side. And if he doesn't he looks like he agrees with it to some extent.

    Parent

    I think these tend to be voters... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:51:15 PM EST
    ... who are risk-averse. Obama's hope-and-change mantra, as well as the uncertainties of what he stands for in the wake of the Wright controversy and the bitterness controversey, makes it hard for them to pull the trigger even if they are enticed by some things about him.

    I would guess these are voters who would consider McCain against Obama, but they are also Democrats. Even if they don't love Hillary, they've lived through eight years of Clinton policies, and seen that they were not a disaster (and most probably considered them good times). I'd expect those voters to support Hillary against McCain.

    they certainly (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by coolit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:54:53 PM EST
    wouldn't support any crazy speeches like, "No. No. NO.  Not God bless America, God Damn America!"

    Parent
    Very true. (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:09:41 PM EST
    My father (in his 70's) is pretty GOP-leaning. He's surprisingly willing a consider Hillary, who he respects for her efforts in New York (he's ex-NYPD). I doubt he'd actually vote for her, but he tells me a lot of his Democratic friends support Hillary, but won't consider Obama. That's anecdotal, but I suspect it's the case for a lot of people in his age range.

    Parent
    The junior Senator from Illinois (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by nellre on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:30:43 PM EST
    The junior Senator from Illinois is too inexperienced.
    You young whippersnappers don't know that experience and wisdom have value because you don't have either.
    But pay attention, and in 20 years or so, you will. :-)

    Parent
    If you've been around the block (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by LHinSeattle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:15:09 AM EST
    a few times, you get pickier about who you choose. Want a record of some accomplishments behind all that fine talking.

    Parent
    Obama Lose The Senior Vote In The GE (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:04:54 PM EST
    Seniors normally prefer experience.

    We have heard every version of hope, change and I'm a uniter and not a divider imaginable and know it is just campaign gobblygook.

    "New guy" getting the job that we or one of our friends worked years to get is not something we appreciate.

    Older women would like to see a woman president during their lifetime.

    Old men might like to see one of their age group get this honor.

    Old people get out of the way and let us run the show doesn't go over real well. Believe it or not, we still think we have life left and something to offer.

    Older people expect the Democrats to protect Social Security and not put it on the table.

    also (5.00 / 11) (#19)
    by miguelito on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:09:15 PM EST
    they actually remember the difference between the Reagan 80s and the Clinton 90s

    Parent
    Good Point (4.85 / 7) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:19:29 PM EST
    Turned me off big time when he reinforced the propaganda of Reagan being an iconic leader. The more he talks about modeling his foreign policy after Reagan/BushI the less inclined I am to vote for him in the GE.

    Of course, my list for not wanting to vote for him grows daily even without Reagan in the mix.

    Parent

    "Older, college-educated voters" (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:16:03 PM EST
    YES!!!! {happy dance}

    I'm no longer an old low info uneducated voter! That was kinda sucking seeing as I'm only in my late 40's, lol!~  {GRIN}

    Man... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:17:42 PM EST
    I sort of liked my standing before.  

    Parent
    I'd Like To Be Standing In The Crowd Watching (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:21:26 PM EST
    Hillary be inaugurated... :)

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:23:13 PM EST
    I feel kinds of reminiscent of the old days (yesterday) of being the old cranky low information voter.  It felt so original, so fresh, especially since it was such a lie.

    Now that I'm back to being "older and college educated and pretty informed," I'm feeling just a little let down.

    Parent

    base is classic not just old (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jedimom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:52:24 PM EST
    look like maybe Coke Classic beats New Coke
    AGAIN

    Dem base is Classic voters

    Parent

    Nawww.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:25:33 PM EST
    Do not use the "E" word.  

    Parent
    Obama's screwed (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29:32 PM EST
    If he turns off the old folks and the boomers.  They VOTE.  Young people will stand him up at the alter.  They ALWAYS do.  They're too busy, they forget, they don't think voting is important, yada, yada, yada.   No democrat can win without the votes of people over 60.  Obama can kiss Florida goodbye, and PA, and Ohio, and and and and.....................

    Why are they acting so strangely? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by wasabi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:43:51 PM EST
    I don't understand why the Obama camp is acting so strangely.  Obama seems to struggle lately, like all the fun has gone out of the campaign.  Are the internal polls bad or is there something negative that is going to come out soon?  I just don't get it.  It can't be due to Wright alone.

    Magic (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by nellre on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:12:19 PM EST
    Magic has a way of evaporating when exposed to the light.

    Parent
    The media hasn't given them (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:28:57 PM EST
    the full "Gather round and see the weak, unpatriotic Democrat!" treatment before this week. Got to be startling when you're used to being cooed over and admired for everything you do. Kerry seemed unnerved by it too, and he hadn't gotten the kind of good press Obama's had.

    Parent
    Perhaps you could be more (1.00 / 7) (#97)
    by kevenseven on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:22:19 PM EST
    explicit in what you mean by "strange"?

    He is doing his damnedest to not use cheap personal attacks on Clinton, despite the fact that he could sink her in a weekend if he tried.

    They have decided that the number of frothing Clintonistas that would be lost in a blatantly negative attack would be too much of a loss going into the General, and Obama, unlike Clinton, still has a plan to be elected this year.

    Parent

    Oh, puh-leeze (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:44:04 PM EST
    Smearing the Clintons as racist isn't "blatantly negative"?

    Parent
    It is weird... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:55:11 PM EST
    ...they aren't pivoting at all.

    Parent
    Why am I thinking "Fred Picker"? (none / 0) (#123)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:41:30 PM EST
    Could it be that there's more to Obama feeling tired and bored than the stresses of the campaign trail? I'm getting vague feelings about a coming implosion. Because that's going to be the only way to finish him off, with the votes so close. With Hillary, her baggage is known, so the implosion is a lot harder to create....


    Parent
    Alright, I'll bite... (none / 0) (#144)
    by wasabi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:51:04 PM EST
    Please fill me in on Fred Picker.  I have no idea what you are talking about, but I've heard him referenced before (by you, I might add!).

    What gives?  Whos he?

    Parent

    saying 'hope' 'unity' 'change' isn't (none / 0) (#165)
    by LHinSeattle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:18:18 AM EST
    working as well as it used to. Maybe not a whole lot else to say?

    Parent
    it was an inappropriate comment (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:29:40 PM EST
    especially from the pulpit!

    Josey...You would do well to not even bother (none / 0) (#133)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:45:37 PM EST
    to respond to kevenseven, a well-known Hillary basher from Huffpo, for one.

    Parent
    Our party... (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:41:58 PM EST
    The difference between Obama negatives and HRC negatives is what? Last I checked it was 2 or 3 points.

    Ultimately, the party does not belong specifically to either you or me. It is our party--as in it belongs to many of us.

    As for "Not my fault America cannot tolerate the woman"? Meh...what have you done to help shift the frame re: that tolerance?

    Instead of sloughing it off as "not my fault," it behooves us all to work to shift that frame so that more tolerance of our differences is possible.

    But "not my fault" is a whole lot easier to hide behind...isn't it?

    You wanna talk about whining? (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:44:53 PM EST
    I won't bother bringing up ALL the cry-babies after the ABC debate in Pennsylvania?  And why are you heaving upon yourself about "not my fault"crap?  Not everyone hates Hillary Clinton.  Maybe in your insular world yes.

    Reviled is a pretty strong word. Judging by your words and tone you seem deftly afraid of Hillary Clinton.  Just like it's not your fault about Hillary's place in the political spectrum, it's no one's fault that YOUR anger is so unsubstantiated.  Yes, she can be so reviled for wanting UHC, balanced budgets and an economy that works for everyone.  Damn that Hillary....I would say God d*** but that's Obama's campaign mantra.

    Young people are at a disadvantage ... (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by dwmorris on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:47:39 PM EST
    They haven't had the benefit of hearing candidates use the same rhetoric for 5, 10, or more election cycles.  Except for incumbents, they all promise change.  Everyone, including George Bush (the lesser), campaigns on the promise that they will work across the aisle to finally fix the country's problems.  So it's no surprise that older voters are a bit cynical listening to Obama.  He's definitely a rock star that serves it up better than ANY of his predecessors ... but it's still the same old swill.

    Two Obama tactical errors. (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:49:31 PM EST
    Obama made the grave political mistakes.  

    1.  In an effort to add new Democratic voters, he took the base for granted, when there was no need to do that.  He even took to bashing them.  You can add without excluding.
    2.  He believed his own mythology.  Therefore, he started to look elite and arrogant, to those beyond us who never believed his mythology.  


    The Meme That America Can't Tolerate That Woman (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:49:34 PM EST
    is a delusion that you would like to believe. Obama's negatives are within 2 - 3% of Hillary's. And he managed drop to this level in less than 1 year. A few more weeks of exposing all of Obama's good pals and Obama's negatives will be lower than Bush's.

    She, not Obama, has received the most votes from Democratic voters. She, not Obama, garners the necessary EVs to beat McCain. She, not Obama, can defeat McCain in MO even though we have a sizable AA community.

    Obama is the candidate who is damaging the Democratic Party.

    Getting back on topic (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:50:43 PM EST
    (don't give him attn)

    Another aspect of Obama losing the senior vote is the way he threw his "typical" grandmother under the bus.  Somewhere there are seniors, who happen to be white and grandmothers, who, may have an ungrateful grandchild out there.  They may see some unredeeming element of them in Obama.

    Just speculation but you never know....

    KevinSeven (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:04:45 AM EST
    is suspended for repeated violations of this site's comment policy. If he comes back, he must stop the insults and name-calling and post no more than 6 comments in a 24 hour period.

    I noticed (none / 0) (#162)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:16:46 AM EST
    some of my comments were deleted.  I apologize if I did anything wrong.  I was trying to appeal to him and asked him to calm down.

    Parent
    no you did nothing wrong (none / 0) (#168)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:24:33 AM EST
    they were good replies. But since I deleted the comments you were replying to, no one would have known what you were referring to. So they went down the rabbit hole too.

    Parent
    Whew! (none / 0) (#169)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:26:35 AM EST
    I was getting worried there for a minute.  Thanks Jeralyn!  

    Parent
    if you delete a comment (none / 0) (#184)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:15:16 AM EST
    any way you can leave an empty box as opposed to disappearing the comment altogether?  It gets confusing when you read a comment that sounds like a reply and aren't really sure what the comment is responding to.

    Parent
    sen. obama is a boomer. (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:26:59 AM EST
    where this myth that he is of a "new" generation got started escapes me.

    the wwII generation took over in 1960, with the election of JFK. with the exception of carter, all those that followed, through bush sr. came of age in the 40's, most being vets of the war. that was roughly a 30 year span.

    the wwI generation also covered a roughly 30 year span, ending with eisenhower.

    bill clinton was the first official baby boomer president, bush the second. if the past is prologue, the boomers have another 3 presidents to go, before transitioning to "gen x" or y or z or whatever. the boomer gen. represents the vietnam era i suppose.

    frankly, sen. obama is the tail end of the boomer generation, lacking the sagacity and experience of the earliest members, of which sen. clinton is one.

    Not my fault America cannot tolerate the woman.  Not my fault that her laugh is grating and unnatural.   But I sure don't want my party to nominate a person whose negatives challenge Bush's.

    not my fault that you lack the capacity for original thought, and insist on recycling right-wing talking points. of course, as with the right-wingers, you fail to provide any empirical data to support your assertions.

    Troll ID trick (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:36:03 AM EST
    I figured how not to get caught in the vortex, I click on the name and see how many posts the person had here on TL.  If it's less than say 60 and all have been really recent and of the same tone, I do my best to not respond.  I really, really try to not respond.  Sometimes I get caught.  

    Best Policy (none / 0) (#181)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:12:10 AM EST
    Don't feed the trolls. And if someone is spamming comments trying to dominate the thread and insulting other commenters or name-calling, send me an email so I know and can delete the comments and ban the commenter. Thanks.

    Parent
    Someone in Orangistan put (4.66 / 3) (#6)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:50:34 PM EST
    down the Koolaid, and wrote that it is over
    for Obama.
    well, he didn't put down all the kool aid (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:58:55 PM EST
    because he's blaming it all on Hillary (working in concert with the GOP, of course!).

    Parent
    That's koolaid with a IACF chaser! (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:59:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Actually, some of the posters (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:22:16 PM EST
    are defending Hillary and saying Obama brought it on himself. Apparently, some sense is starting to creep in over the Kool-Aid influence. Some are vowing to vote for McCain if Hillary gets the nomination. Others are berating the McCain voters. It's fun to watch them melt down, though. That diarist is a bit of a concern troll. Always worrying that the Dems are going to lose. Probably a paid poster for the GOP. Heh.

    Parent
    I think their ranks (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:24:08 PM EST
    will shrink in the coming weeks.  As the kids become disillusioned with their once Iron Candidate.

    Parent
    There was a great take down of (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:30:37 PM EST
    Granny Doc in her diary today.

    "The questions Wright raises, the history he uncovers, the religion he represents will only be offensive to the narrow, cold, practitioners of European Colonial theology."

    Um, what?  "Only offensive to the narrow, cold practitioners of European Colonial theology'?  How patently insulting and arrogant!  Speak for yourself, and only for yourself, my friend.

    If you find Reverend Wright's brand of "christianity" your cup of tea, then enjoy it.  But you undercut your argument by dismissing all other western practitioners (and I assume non-practitioners, as I am) as being a sorry and corrupted lot. But let's thank God YOU made it out unscathed, a pristine vessel, just waiting to receive the loving and timeless wisdom of Dr. Jeremiah.

    and

    f you are only speaking for yourself, then why do you suggest that somehow you know the real reason why a whole swath of people you don't even know would be offended by his words?  Who are you to characterize the visceral, negative response many people have had to what he has said and dismiss it by saying those offended are "narrow and cold practitioners" of a religion you don't seem to have much respect for?

    If you have the nerve to say such a thing you should have the nerve to answer for making such a sweeping and condescending declaration.

    Take all the comfort in Wright's "rightness" that you want, but he doesn't need to be right right now, he needs to shut the hell up.  He is playing a dangerous game, greatly damaging Obama's chances to beat McCain in the fall.  While people on Kos wax rhapsodic about Wright's "real meaning" and his "brilliance" the narrative against him, and by extension, Obama, is hardening.  Wright may play well on the college campus or in the coffee house, but he is killing Obama's chances in the General.



    Parent
    There was a poster here last night (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:39:59 PM EST
    who needed to read this.  Also suffered from arrogance extremis.  Good find; thanks.

    Parent
    Wow. (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:50:29 PM EST
    Who wrote that?  (I've been suspicious for a while that Grannydoc is a plant of some kind, so glad to see this comment.)

    FWIW, Rev. Eugene Rivers, an influential black preacher in Boston, was on Matthews today and was pretty incensed that Wright is saying that criticism of him is just criticism of the entire "black church."  He says Rev. Wright's style is one style within the black religious community, but it's not his style or anywhere near everyone's style, and he resents Wright basically trying to tell the world that "everybody does it."

    Parent

    She went off the rails months ago. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:01:43 AM EST
    In a vehement diary about the Clintons' racism.  It was the strangest thing I ever read, and the strangest part is that she clearly was quivering with outrage--over nothing.  It sat on top of the rec list with many heartfelt expressions of gratitude in the comments.  Truly bizarre.

    Parent
    as predicted by posters here (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by miguelito on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:00:40 PM EST
    when the end comes for Obama, it will be Clinton's fault.  

    Parent
    Still Sipping Pretty Hard (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by cdalygo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:01:22 PM EST
    Kind of a like a kid's sippy cup.

    Did you notice that he had to blame her for it? Further the author emphasized how she had derailed an African American's presidency.

    That's not good. If his candidacy ends up failing prior to November, his more strident supporters will always insist it was her fault. Let's hope there is enough data out there - with the Net - to prevent that urban legend from sprouting.

    Parent

    her coalition (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by miguelito on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:03:46 PM EST
    can beat McCain without Obama's 'most strident' supporters.  His coalition... does he still have one?

    Parent
    his coalition (4.50 / 4) (#65)
    by daryl herbert on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:47:17 PM EST
    Will be voting for Sen. McCain.

    According to the DKos poll, 68% so far say they won't vote for Hillary in the GE.  ("Hell no!")

    According to the blogger UpstateDem who posted the item, she will "join whoever I have to" to prevent Clinton from getting the presidency.  Obviously, that means voting for John McCain (twice as effective as staying home, because she can cancel out a Clinton-supporter's vote).

    Who knew that the DailyKos was capable of bipartisanship?

    Parent

    Well Obama Is The Bipartisan Candidate (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:04:18 PM EST
    and Hillary Hate has been the main focus for a while now. Kos can either walk these people back or become a Republican blog.

    Parent
    DKos is not that powerful. (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:53:47 PM EST
    Just fervent.  There are maybe a couple of hundred people over there writing most of the comments, and they're not the brightest, most rational bulbs on the Christmas tree.  Many of the front-pagers are even worse.

    Parent
    Eh (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:04:42 PM EST
    Considering if he falls it will all be about Wright, other than hard-core kool-aid sippers of which the African American community as a whole is not, it will only be Kossacks and hardliners that will take this view. The black community knows that Clinton had nothing to do with this. Unlike certain blog commenters, most people do not listen to BS racism calls by people like Markos etc.

    Parent
    Too late (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:51:36 PM EST
    That narrative was predetermined.  It is already gospel among the Obamabots.

    Parent
    Well... (1.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:24:20 PM EST
    ...it will be partially her fault, that's indisputable.

    Now, she has the right to stay in, but it's caused a division that perhaps could've been avoided if she'd gotten out and thrown her support behind him.

    Again, she has every right to stay in and try to win, but to act like the past month or so will have no consequences is ridiculous.

     

    Parent

    Yeah, (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    he had every right to stay in too, even with his baggage ala Wright, etc..  Now he's been so divisive, with surrogates like Clyburn(sp) fueling race hate, etc.  If he'd just gotten out, there wouldn't have been such division.


    Parent
    I don't know if you think you got a punch in there (3.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:31:22 PM EST
    ...but yes, that's actually exactly my point.

    Parent
    It's a point (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:43:00 PM EST
    but a pretty pointless point.  Like saying there would no more auto collisions if all the autos but one just got off the road . . . to leeeeve the poor car aloooooone.

    Parent
    True enough... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:46:06 PM EST
    ...but there are few no-fault two car collisions. And the person was talking about "fault." So.

    Parent
    This is so funny.... (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by alexei on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:17:11 PM EST
    Clinton is at fault because she continues in the race and Obama's Pastor throws him under the bus.  Good thing she did stay in the race or it would have been McCain's fault for daring to run when Obama's Pastor threw him under the bus.

    Parent
    Wright (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:38:26 PM EST
    makes Swiftboating look old school.  A new verb for What he has wrought is needed.

    Parent
    Huh? How is it her fault? (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:31:36 PM EST
    Because she didn't do what she was told and drop out when Obama wanted her to? You cannot be serious. This is a dangerously laughable narrative. But feel free to express it.  LOL.  Yes, it's her fault because she didn't drop out in time for Wright to implode in Obama's face and completely sink the Dems in November.

    Parent
    There's an acronym that covers this... (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:35:38 PM EST
    Wait, it'll come to me...

    Parent
    Hillary's only "fault" if Obama is out (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:18:28 PM EST
    is in her winning NH, CA, NJ, NY, OH & PA (and FL while we are at it). How terrible of her -- she should have just conceded after Iowa.

    Parent
    The word "fault" here is perjorative... (3.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:43:53 PM EST
    ...and I think that is leading people to believe that I think Hillary should've dropped out. That's not what I think, as made clear by my above responses, here, tonight, elsewhere, before. She should stay in as long as she wants. She should win if she can. Competition trumps short-term unity.

    But if your interest is in unity for unity's sake then the lack of unity is her "fault" once he started to win/get far ahead in the pledged delegate count, and his "fault" before that.

    Parent

    Unity for unity's sake (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:55:46 PM EST
    wtf does that mean? Is that one of those riddles like "we are the ones we've been waiting for" 'cause personally being Beckett girl myself, I've always thought we were waiting for godot. Unity for unity's sake sounds kind of superficial to me.

    Parent
    Unity without a well-defined goal (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:29:30 AM EST
    is WORTHLESS.  People can in fact unite to commit a crime or to do some other harm.

    Mature minds know this.  Only those who are still practically lactating (no offense to the one who chose this as a handle) fall for this, much like the children who innocently/mindlessly? followed the Pied Piper to their regret.

    Parent

    I'm very clearly... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:58:55 PM EST
    ...saying that unity for unity's sake is not commendable. I MEANT it to sound superficial. I've stated, now maybe FOUR times, that competition is better than unity.

    Parent
    And how will it (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Serene1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:16:52 AM EST
    "partially" be her fault.

    Last I checked, the nomination was selection based on competition not selection based on coronation.

    Also Hillary if she wins the nomination would have won it against a hostile media, hostile liberal establishment, hostile obama supporters and with much less money than Obama. All the above mentioned groups tried their level best to swift boat her with various and at some times pure conjectured allegations. She along with her supporters still soldiered on.

    Comparitively Obama had to face an extremely friendly media, a v.v. accommodating DNC establishment, a loyal following of the top liberal elites and massive war chest. Wright, Ayers, Cling comment and other sundries were not Hillary's creations but were Obama's own skeletons from his closet.

    And if now Kossaks and other Obama supporters still want to play the Blame Hillary game all I can say is Grow Up.

    Parent

    But more his fault, right? (4.66 / 6) (#47)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:32:05 PM EST
    Because while Obama's been leading the last month or so, Clinton certainly had a bigger lead in all the polls before the election even started.  Shouldn't he have dropped out then?

    If Clinton were developing novel lines of attack against Obama, attacks that wouldn't be made by the Republicans in November (eg, if she were driving him far to the left) her campaign might deserve some degree of criticism.  But she isn't.  All she's doing is benefiting from his own goof-ups ("clinging to guns and religion") and media coverage.

    Parent

    Yeah. Exactly. (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:35:22 PM EST
    He continues to shoot himself in the foot and Hillary has simply stayed  out of his way while he does so and suddenly it can be blamed on her? Because she didn't drop out?? LOL. This is the very reason that I'm so glad that she DIDN'T drop out. Because now we know before the GE and not when it's Obama v. McCain and way too late to do anything about it.

    Parent
    So yeah, more his fault... (2.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:57:30 PM EST
    ...whatever. It's a pointless game, but if we're talking about a breakdown in unity being a problem then competitors to unity, in whatever timeframe you want, are going to be blamed. The key is to view competition as trumping unity, at least for the short-term.

    Parent
    Unity doesn't mean (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:12:47 PM EST
    that one competitor is required to get out of the way before the race is finished. Unity means we all pull together after the nomination is won. What on earth? Do you think John McCain is going to get out of the way if Obama gets far enough  ahead in the polls next fall?

    Nope, he's going to run hard and give it all he's got, not just drop out so Obama can win. That line of talk makes it sound like you have no faith in your candidate--he's not my guy, but I think he wants to win this thing, not have it handed to him.

    Parent

    Huh? (3.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:37:26 PM EST
    Right, I agree. Competition is more important than unity, it trumps unity. That's exactly what I said. Your antagonistic response is confusing.

    Parent
    Not antagonistic, (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:59:21 PM EST
    just befuzzled. And I reread the thread twice to try to understand. What I got is: you're blaming Hillary for the Democrats not having unity, except you support her staying in because it's a competition, but still she should have dropped out and thrown her support to Obama once he got ahead or maybe he should have dropped out first? Guess it's time for bed, because this is giving me the giggles :)

    Parent
    Almost. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:03:35 AM EST
    This:

    But still she should have dropped out and thrown her support to Obama once he got ahead or maybe he should have dropped out first
    is not correct. If both of them stupidly cared about unity for unity's sake, or wanted to avoid being at fault for a lack of unity, they should've dropped out at the points you list. However, unity isn't more important than competition, so they were both right to fight, even if it meant they demolished party unity for a short while.

    Parent
    We probably agree! (none / 0) (#160)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:11:20 AM EST
    I can't be sure, but it looks like it :DDD

    This whole conversation reminds me of Stephen Wright somehow. "I put instant coffee in the microwave and I almost went back in time." 'Night :)

    Parent

    Do you know what Unity means? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:45:22 PM EST
    And if Obama was "the One" to bring about "change and unity", he would already have won this Primary, right? After all, he is the one he has been waiting for, not Hillary.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:50:55 PM EST
    Competition trumps unity. I've said that maybe three times now. Hillary should stay in and try to win. Who and/or what are you responding to?

    Parent
    I'm a little shocked (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Lil on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:02:15 PM EST
    that they are giving up so easily. I mean HCS's been kicked around for months and she's still hanging in there. Obama has a bad week, maybe two and they are saying it is over...I don't get that. Can anyone explain that?

    Parent
    Did you take the poll? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:55:35 PM EST
    Considering, the numbers were not that bad for Hillary over there. Ha. Probably all of us chiming in with out votes.

    Parent
    Wow. (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:42:00 PM EST
    It's all Hillary's fault, except this diary comes on the heels of the Wright weekend from h3ll for some reason.  It's all Hillary's fault?  If people at Kos aren't able to see the problems Wright is on one hand fighting and on another hand creating more clearly, their credibility is completely shot and their ability to help choose a nominee useless.

    Parent
    Of course, it's Clinton's fault (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:48:33 PM EST
    and could have been so easily solved if she had done the press conference about Wright for Obama today, answering all three questions.  Then he wouldn't have had to answer any at all.

    As it was, she had to take one question today that was for him to answer.  Then she was so heartless as to be out on the campaign trail, working harder than ever, rather than saving Obama from having to uhhhhhh again.  (That's getting worse by the day, btw, such a sign when he is at a loss for what to say -- and understandably so, from under the bus where Wright tossed him.)

    Parent

    don't think so... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:48:10 PM EST
    tagged "snark."

    Parent
    That was added. . . (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:52:42 PM EST
    by another user.

    Not sure whether the poster is for real or is a right-winger (plenty of anti-Clinton and anti-Obama stuff in that diary) but at the very least he's pretending to be real.

    Parent

    That whole diary... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:30:16 PM EST
    and the diarist seems a bit "off."

    Parent
    The whole establishment. . . (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:41:07 PM EST
    seems a bit "off", but that may just be me.

    Parent
    The sole premise offered... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by citizen53 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:05:08 AM EST
    by that diarist to support Obama was that he was black.

    As if race should ever be a criteria, from any direction.

    Parent

    No. (4.33 / 3) (#33)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:24:51 PM EST
    That person picked up the kool-aid. Just the wrong glass this time.

    Parent
    A link? (none / 0) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:05:04 PM EST
    I ventured over there and couldn't find it.

    Parent
    The link is right there. . . (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:25:22 PM EST
    in MarkL's comment -- takes you right to the diary.

    Surprisingly, there are three commenters in the diary who don't feel that people should vote for McCain instead of Clinton were she to be the nominee.  Not surprisingly the majority of the "Democrats" there plan on voting McCain (either a full vote, or half a vote by sitting out the Presidential election).

    Parent

    classic (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by miguelito on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:39:00 PM EST
    the "Democrats" there planning on voting for McCain were just pouting that Hillary wasn't a Democrat last week.. hilarity

    Parent
    It's by Upstate Democrat...It's Over (none / 0) (#26)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:19:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Paradox (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:23:37 PM EST
    Obama now switches the story that it's about you, the voter.  Yet his whole campaign was about him, the narrative, his life story, his transformative candidacy.  Would you call this a flip flop, tactic change or reality check?  

    Parent
    Flip-flop? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jackyt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:28:13 PM EST
    No... more like parroting HRC's campaign. I guess she wasn't so "old politics" afterall.

    Parent
    more like ping-ponging n/t (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:24:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Wow, how delusional (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:26:07 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton did it?  Reverend Wright today didn't play a part?

    Parent
    whoa (4.00 / 0) (#174)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:39:29 AM EST

    The Illinois senator lost older Latinos by 40 to 60 percentage points in Texas, New Mexico and California.

    That's just crazy incredible.  Maybe now people will comprehend why I say that it isn't hard to imagine the Latinos connecting with McCain in Cali (if Clinton isn't the nom)...or heck, I guess Texas too (where my family is originally from).

    I've wondered for a while... (1.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:30:36 PM EST
    ...why he wasn't talking to older voters, and pandering to them.

    Now, full disclosure, I lack respect for the baby boomer generation of the United States, and what they've managed to do to this country, more than pretty much anyone. An anti-boomer diary I wrote at Dailykos years ago was apparently remembered when I came back 2-3 later.  But all the same, as a voting block they're enormously influential and Obama ignoring them -- when a simple couple of social security and economic proposals could've staunched the flow -- has been a rolling blunder that isn't understandable to me.

    Photo ops with Ted Kennedy weren't enough. Comparisons to JFK and MLK weren't enough. When a generation doesn't really want or need a new inspirational speaker/leader (because it would lessen the value of their own generation's) you've got to have stuff to dole out. Obama has so far failed to deliver the stuff.

    Lovely that you lack respect (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:33:22 PM EST
    for the generation that ended the war in Vietnam, brought forth the civil rights movement, fought for a woman's right to choose and helped usher in the women's movement.  Those dumb old folks.

    Parent
    thank you, rooge04... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by jackyt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:52:51 PM EST
    It may also be worth noting that the extreme consumerism of the BBgen stems from the decision in the Eisenhower years (yes, a repub) to promote the purchase of doodads, geegaws and thingamabobs as the way to keep the US economy all fired up post WWII.

    Parent
    "the extreme consumerism of the BBgen" (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by LHinSeattle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:23:00 AM EST
    that sound be of some of them.

    And last I looked many of the Gen Xs & Ys were loading up on stuff at WalMart and Target and Starbucks too.

    Parent

    Well... (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:43:50 PM EST
    ...boomers would've been born in 46-48. What you're talking about happened in 1955-1970, thereabouts. And I don't really think a bunch of folks under 24 (or younger) for the entire period of upheaval in this country really had a lot of to with it, retrospective notwithstanding. MLK wasn't a boomer. JFK, RFK, and LBJ weren't. The Beatles weren't. Etc. Etc. Etc. Most of those people were born in the Depression-WWII period. I mean y'all were kind of the fans in the stands, which is cool, but isn't the same as playing.

    So that's what I'm talking about.

    But this is the mother of all digressions. And what's more, it doesn't matter. What matters is Obama isn't working hard enough to get a vote that is important.

    Parent

    Well, bless your heart, but half of the Beatles (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:00:51 PM EST
    were boomers.  You don't know the years of the boom, at all.  I was born in the peak births year of the baby boom, but you don't even include it.    So I would be spared your ire owing to your error!

    Nor do you know about the many movements of the '60s and '70s -- not the few leaders you can name, but the movements that brought them to leadership.  You think we were just "fans in the stands," while a few presidents and pols did the work? as you have named only one movement leader.  

    The younger generation today still could learn by forming a movement or two or more, if willing to get up and get involved and get out in the streets -- not go to fan-in-the-stands rallies now for a pol and think that makes it a  "movement."  But even short of that, it's easy to read and find out about the baby boom, the movements of that era, etc.

    Parent

    Well... (2.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:27:30 PM EST
    ...true, baby boomers were born from 1946-1964, from the time when soldiers came home from WWII until the 50's boom/realignment finally petered out. So yes, I didn't include the even younger members of the generation, for reasons made obvious by my argument that even the earliest weren't really around for a lot of the substantive change in the US. Does that make sense? I hope so. I'm not sure what start point you're working with?

    I named the most famous leaders because I wasn't writing a book about famous leaders. They were illustrative. I don't know why I included the Beatles at all, that was dumb, they're British.

    And I don't think the rallies or marches or countercultural (save the civil rights ones, in the South) necessarily accomplished all that much. I think they extended Vietnam, for instance, by creating a cultural/class division exploited by conservative pols. I'm actually glad my generation has largely taken a different tact and it's still yet to be seen how that will work out. I'm not so optimistic about ours either.

    But again, this is a massive digression from the conversation at hand. I hope that I've cleared up what I'm talking about to some degree and you can just disagree. I shouldn't have posted a comment with such inflammatory fringes in this thread. It turned out to be thread-jacking. So I hope that you'll forgive my lack of further explanation.

    Parent

    Ignorance is not bliss (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by nellre on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:22:49 PM EST
    for those who have to listen to it.
    Boomers are 1946 through 1956 (or even 1964).
    wiki
    We boomers were the ones getting sprayed with the fire hose when MLK was inspiring us.
    We boomers were the ones demonstrating in the streets when LBJ and Nixon were in office.

    Your ignorance is stunning.

    Parent

    Boomers were BORN then... (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:33:10 PM EST
    ...that isn't their period of adulthood.

    Also, and God willing this will clear up some confusion -- at least as far as definitions go -- I feel like maybe people are misreading "boomer" as "liberals of a certain age." That isn't it, at all. Republicans are boomers too, if they were born in a certain era. And in the era of peak boomer influence and power (1971-2001, when they were 25-55) I feel like things didn't go as well as they could have. And a lot of that has to do with conservative boomers.

    All pointless. Forgive me my digressions, what's important is that Obama is doing a terrible job of getting their votes.

    Parent

    who is misreading? (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by nellre on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:54:51 PM EST
    Boomers were born between 1946 and 1957 according to most definitions of the cadre.
    The notion of boomer does not identify party affiliation. I knew no conservatives back then... but perhaps they were shunned as being square.
    Boomers launched the counter culture, we recreated ourselves by rejecting the status quo, and became known as hippies.
    We hosted a golden age of rock and roll.
    Many downsides, but many upsides as well.
    Above all we were involved. Apathy was not common among us.
    The apathy and disempowerment of the generations that followed has been a profound disappointment to many of us.


    Parent
    Oh, man (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:16:55 AM EST
    You can't even do arithmetic!  Ever hear of the lunch counter sit-ins by COLLEGE STUDENTs down South?  Or the "freedom rides" on the buses?

    How dare you sit there and tell me where I marched and who turned firehoses on my friends and where I got gassed and chased by cops with truncheons and which of my peers got their heads busted by them?

    The leadership of the civil rights movement was pre-Boomers, but many if not most of the foot soldiers were Boomers.  The anti-war movement that took to the streets was almost entirely Boomers.

    Give me a break and lose the revisionist history.  This kind of stuff really, really p***es me off.

    Parent

    Ohh...now you touched a button (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:35:45 PM EST
    Yes, we were fans, and we did not give up their struggles because they did not win and walk away with our heads down.  We gave years to changing laws, changing public policy, changing science, changing the social and cultural paradigms.  We fought, we lost many battles and won some.  That is why, when you attack the culture wars and the excesses of the 60 and 70's you get us really mad.  When all I hear is " vote for change, cause if you don't the young voters will lose hope" .  

    Lose a few times, that is how you learn to keep your head up and keep fighting.  Economic, social and political justice are not simple wins.  You have to fight the same battles over and over.  You cannot get bored. You cannot lose sight.  It's a life struggle.  

    Yes, we followed great leaders, MLK, and others.  We unfortunately, made it look easy for you.  That was our mistake.  Jane Jacobs in her last book said, that a society can go into the dark ages within 25 years.  So get up, dust yourselves off and friggin work at it all your lives.  

    Ok, now let me step off my soap box.  

    Parent

    No. You have it wrong. (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by wasabi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:39:42 PM EST
    "When a generation doesn't really want or need a new inspirational speaker/leader (because it would lessen the value of their own generation's)..."

    The rejection of Obama by the 45+ age group has absolutely nothing to do with how we feel about our generation.  And we're not waiting for a handout either.  What insulting drivel.

    Parent

    Not a handout... (1.50 / 2) (#61)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:44:50 PM EST
    ...a pander. And EVERYONE is waiting for a pander.

    Parent
    Nope. (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by wasabi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:40:58 PM EST
    Everyone is not waiting for a pander.  I am not waiting to be pandered to.  What are you talking about?
    Politicians are politicians.  Do you think I'm going to vote for someone because they whisper sweet nothings to me on the campaign road?   You serious?
    Go read a book or something.

    Parent
    I'm laughing... (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:50:15 PM EST
    man, Addison, sometimes you write the wackiest stuff.... I just can't relate on any level, all I can do is laugh and shake my head.  

    Parent
    Well... (2.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:54:24 PM EST
    ...to be honest I kind of forgot where I was, or half-forgot, and wrote a different species of comment than I should have. This is the sort of discussion that would've been fun at Dkos years ago. It's not the sort of discussion that will be interesting or fun right now, or here at Talkleft. Or welcome right now, or here at Talkleft.

    So: sorry to Jeralyn ahead of time for the digressions that are inevitably going to be the things commented on here.

    Parent

    In 2000 Did The Percentage Of Youth Vote (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:14:56 PM EST
    match the percentage of seniors? In 2004 did the percentage of youth vote match the percentage of seniors? Not numbers of the people who voted but a percentage of the total demographic. If the younger folks did't go out and vote in force (meaning in the same percentage as seniors) then you are scapegoating others for your demographic lack of responsibility.

    Parent
    I'm not defending my demographic... (2.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:18:39 PM EST
    ...and a most of those "older voters" in past elections weren't boomers, but pre-boomers.

    But again, this is a digression. What's important is that Barack Obama has failed to pander to a very important group.

    Parent

    Didn't Even Have To Pander (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:38:04 PM EST
    Show some respect and refraining from putting a group down is not pandering.

    Parent
    I know you are not serious (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:31:40 PM EST
    when you wrote this: Photo ops with Ted Kennedy weren't enough. Comparisons to JFK and MLK weren't enough. When a generation doesn't really want or need a new inspirational speaker/leader (because it would lessen the value of their own generation's) you've got to have stuff to dole out. Obama has so far failed to deliver the stuff.
    Bless your heart, photo ops with Ted Kennedy and self-serving comparisons to JFK & MLK do not an inspirational speaker/leader make.  Have you ever considered why in the world the baby boomers would be impressed with an imitation JFK & MLK when they had the real thing?  


    Parent
    Exactly. (3.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:34:41 PM EST
    Bless your heart, photo ops with Ted Kennedy and self-serving comparisons to JFK & MLK do not an inspirational speaker/leader make.  Have you ever considered why in the world the baby boomers would be impressed with an imitation JFK & MLK when they had the real thing?  

    Well, but that's all basically my argument, though. Comparisons to JFK and MLK aren't enough. And boomers feel like they had the "real thing," and that's an obstacle for Obama.

    Parent

    You miss the point entirely (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:43:00 PM EST
    the boomers know the real thing when they see it -- and Obama, bless his heart, ain't it.

    Parent
    That's your judgement about Obama... (3.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:49:23 PM EST
    ...from your perspective, and from your set of personal, political, and cultural biases. All of which makes it valid for you. But not for everyone.

    Now, maybe Jeralyn at some point will have a thread where we can argue about our differing perspectives further (because it's ok to have differing perspectives and the resulting differing conclusions), or maybe someday Dailykos will again be a place where a lot of different voices can argue and not have a complete and total debacle break out every time. But for now we're just talking past each other with differing perspectives on what we need politically and culturally now, and we don't have the space to do it, since this is a post with a limited topic.

    So. Bless everyone's heart.

    Parent

    Oh, I'll take up the space (5.00 / 8) (#166)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:22:39 AM EST
    and if this gets deleted sobeit, (and I apologize to Jerylyn in advance if it does). My view about Obama not holding a candle to JFK & MLK is not based "my perspective" it is based on cold, hard facts, that his supporters seem to either conveniently overlook or are ignorant of when they make these false analogies to Obama.  JFK had real experience before he was elected president -- he had military service as a commander of the USS-PT 109 during WWII; he served in the US House of Representatives for 6 years; he served in the US Senate for 7 years; plus, he had the good sense to marry Jacqueline Bouvier (and believe me, Michelle Obama is no Jackie Kennedy).  During his time in Congress, JFK actually took politically unpopular but courageous stands, such as voting for the 1957 Civil Rights Act.  When he ran for president and questions arose about his Catholicism, JFK didn't give a "prepared speech" with no follow up -- he sat there for hours at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association answering the questions put to him. Oh, yeah, he also cleaned Nixon's clocks during the debates.  As to MLK, that comparison is even more laughable -- MLK did not just give speeches, he put his freedom & life, literally, on the line  --  not to get himself elected to public office, but to raise public consciousness of the civil rights movement in this country.  He received the Noble Peace Prize (the youngest person ever) for his work in the civil rights movement. He did not just talk about changed -- he caused it to happen. These two men did not just talk the talk, they walked the walk. With all due respect to Sen. Obama, so far, all he has shown me is that he can talk the talk.

    Parent
    David Brooks has (none / 0) (#81)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:00:13 PM EST
    an interesting column about the demographic divide in the NYTimes.  

    Forgot the link (none / 0) (#83)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:02:16 PM EST

    David Brooks Culture Divide

    it was an inappropriate comment (none / 0) (#105)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:29:40 PM EST
    especially from the pulpit!

    Buy some new talking points (none / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:36:55 PM EST
    these are far too old and boring.

    Sorry if you are incapable of taking them apart, (1.00 / 0) (#145)
    by kevenseven on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:51:57 PM EST
    but these are my arguments.   I am prepared to defend my positions.

    Parent
    Look at my comment above... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:57:08 PM EST
    ...which said something about as threatening to a particular worldview as yours did (if not more), and look at the near-discussion that was spawned (it was almost a frank and open exchange! Almost!).

    And then look at your ad hominem bedazzled comment, and your subsequent refusal to engage discussion on any level.

    Notice the difference?

    Your stated interest in defending your points rings hollow.

    Parent

    NiceGuy turned out to be (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:14:33 AM EST
    Kevin Seven. Nice Guy's comments have been removed and the account deleted.

    This thread is closing (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:15:07 AM EST
    We're almost at 200.

    Dave above asks (none / 0) (#185)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:27:39 AM EST
    Dave asks above: whether I can leave a blank space for deleted comment. Unfortunately, no. I can't edit comments or add to them, only delete them. When there are comments responding to a deleted comment, I sometimes leave a comment advising the comment they are responding to has been deleted, but that takes a lot of time given the volume of comments on this site. Usually I also delete the responses to the deleted comment, depends on how much time I have.

    An imperfect system to be sure, but I do the best I can with the limited time I have, considering I'd rather be blogging than monitoring comments,

    If you see a critical comment disagreeing with something but can't figure out what, it's probably been deleted.

    Dave above asks (none / 0) (#186)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:28:28 AM EST
    Dave asks above: whether I can leave a blank space for deleted comment. Unfortunately, no. I can't edit comments or add to them, only delete them. When there are comments responding to a deleted comment, I sometimes leave a comment advising the comment they are responding to has been deleted, but that takes a lot of time given the volume of comments on this site. Usually I also delete the responses to the deleted comment, depends on how much time I have.

    An imperfect system to be sure, but I do the best I can with the limited time I have, considering I'd rather be blogging than monitoring comments,

    If you see a critical comment disagreeing with something but can't figure out what, it's probably been deleted.

    re-postiing about next to last para. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:57:21 AM EST
    "Democratic white women in particular, from the early Baby Boomers to those born before women could vote, are also more likely to be feminists. Many of their lives are in part defined by the women's movement." (Politico, 4/27)

    That hits what I have been thinking, but let's put it this way: "more like to have been feminists
    AND activists."  We got a durn good start with Eleanor, you know.  I grew up with "My Day" and the jokes about all the places Eleanor visited.  And there was her backing of the Marian Anderson concert, bucking the DAR.  She'd have marched for MLK and taken a teenager by the hand right up the steps of Little Rock.

    The article concluded by saying we older women want to see a woman president before we die.  Right on!  (If it is true (as I suspect!) that the repugnants are the ones with wealth, I guess they have the wives who stayed home, baked cookies, and didn't make waves for ERA.  Not many trophy wives among my friends!)

    My grandmother (none / 0) (#188)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    died in late August 1969.  When she saw Neil Armstrong step foot on the moon, she said, "When I get to heaven, I owe your grandfather ten bucks.  I bet him that we'd have a woman President before we got to the moon. He said that he had more faith in science than that."

    Obama's Age Problem: He's Not Connecting and There's More of Them | 167 comments (167 topical)