MyDD :: Iraq Not Hurting Hillary Among Democrats, but Obama Surging Among Blacks

Iraq Not Hurting Hillary Among Democrats, but Obama Surging Among Blacks

by francislholland, Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:14:04 AM EST

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Barack Obama is increasingly seeming like the more strategically astute choice for those who want a viable alternative to Hillary Clinton.

First posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

Polling information reported a couple of weeks ago by the Washington Post indicates that Hillary's approach on Iraq has not hurt her with most Democrats. The Washington Post reported that:

Her position on the war in Iraq does not appear to be hurting Clinton among Democrats, even though she has faced hostile questioning from some voters about her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to go to war. Some Democrats have demanded that she apologize for the vote, which she has declined to do.

The Post-ABC News poll found that 52 percent of Democrats said her vote was the right thing to do at the time, while 47 percent said it was a mistake. Of those who called it a mistake, however, [only] 31 percent said she should apologize. Among Democrats who called the war the most important issue in deciding their 2008 candidate preference, Clinton [still] led Obama 40 to 26 percent. WaPost

But, a Washington Post/ABC news poll also showed a dramatic shift among Blacks toward Barack Obama, feuling suspicion that Obama may be the more viable candidate for those who want an alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Democrats who have supported Edwards in the past are now challenged to decide whether to continue in that support or switch to Obama, whose support is twice as high as Edwards' overall, with Obama also surging among Blacks relative to Hillary Clinton. WaPost

A plus for progressives supporting Obama is that, unlike Edwards, Obama never did support the war in Iraq.

Particularly among leftist bloggers who have not supported Clinton, there may be a move to coalesce behind Senator Barack Obama, both because he is a candidate who can win significant Black votes in the primaries to combine with progressive votes, and because, if nominated, Blacks' will more enthusiastically support Obama than they would Edwards. Edwards, with lower polling numbers now, and little hope of winning Blacks support in the primaries, is unlikely to overcome Hillary Clinton, and so dividing forces between Edwards and Obama will most likely result in Hillary Clinton being the victor.

With his broad appeal, strong liberalism, great speaking ability, large crowds (at least 20,000 in Houston), strong fundraising ability, and increasing institutional support (head of Massachusetts Dem Party endorses Obama), coalescing behing Barack Obama is increasingly seeming like the more viable and strategically astute choice for those who want an alternative to Hillary Clinton.

First posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

francislholland@yahoo.com

Poll

Votes: 21
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, 2008, Iraq (all tags)

Permalink :: 29 Comments :: Post a Comment

Thank you for your... (3.00 / 0)

...concern.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:46:28 AM EST

Why would anti-war voter support Edwards (none / 0)

Why would anyone for whom Iraq is the first priority vote for a senator who voted IN FAVOR of IWR and against a Senator who was AGAINT IWR?

If anti-war voters support Edwards over Obama, they are basically telling ALL politicians that they can go ahead and vote for war with IRAN because in 2012, anti-war voters might still vote for a candidate who favored war with Iran before voting for one who always opposed war with Iran.

If you can't vote for Hillary because of IRAQ, then you MUST support Obama over Edwards. It's only logical. Edwards voted for the Iraq war while Obama opposed it.

Anti-war activists who support Edwards now over Obama are effectively telling Congresspeople to vote however they please on Iraq and Iran. Say "sorry" later, and you can still win more votes than candidates who opposed the wars when it counted.

by francislholland on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:23:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Think it's safe to say you're a well-established.. (3.00 / 0)

...Hillary supporter. For you to then be telling people which "anti-Hillary" they should support is quite amusing.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:40:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep (3.00 / 1)

I am an Obama supporter, and even I can see he's trying to provoke a fight. Make the Obama and Edawrds supporters fight, and Queen Hilly-Billy may step into her coronation unopposed.

by ElitistJohn on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:43:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep (none / 0)

He's an HRC supporter, but his second choice is Obama. Hence his statements. He isn't trying to provoke an Obama-Edwards fight, he just wants to push the anti-hillary people to Obama... much like many of us hope it is an Obama-Edwards 2 way race, he wants an Obama-Clinton 2 way race.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:56:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would anti-war voter support Edwards (none / 0)

Edwards campaigned for an anti-war candidate against a powerful, pro-war incumbent, while Obama refused to.

Obama's opposition to the war was politically WITHOUT ANY RISK, as a state senator from Chicago and then running in the Democratic primary.

Hence, your argument is not necessarily logical.

by justinh on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:10:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pollsters data not complete enough (none / 0)

Are you telling me Hillary wouldn't have gotten higher approval ratings if she didn't triangulate so badly on the war? All the numbers tell you so far is that she is still popular. But it does not tell you if she would increase those ratings if she did the right thing the last few years.

"while 47 percent said it was a mistake. Of those who called it a mistake, however, [only] 31 percent said she should apologize.

The better terminology would be "has not hurt her enough to lose the lead yet". It tells you nothing about the inclinations of the 47% whether she voted for the war or not. Even the 31% issue is incomplete as it does not say whether the endorsing of the non apology is just an endorsement of correct strategy rather than what they would like her to do.

by Pravin on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 03:55:47 AM EST

You doubt the poll data? (none / 0)

Do you doubt that Obama is stronger now and will ALWAYS be stronger among Blacks than Edwards? Do you need a poll to tell you that?

I'm all for empirical data, but when you doubt the empirical data, then you can always fall back on common sense, particularly when it is clearly alligned with the empirical data.

by francislholland on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:26:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I confess. (none / 0)

I last voted in 2000 when I voted against George W. Bush. Then I left the United States and, for the most part, have not been back since.

I am not coming back anytime soon, but will soon register to vote absentee in 2008 for the first non-white male President of the United States. Otherwise, I cannot imagine that I will ever come back at all.

There are the alarming facts of Francis L. Holland's voter registration.

by francislholland on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:31:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards doesn't offer me anything . . . (none / 0)

except more of the same. I'm going to tell you straight out, as I've said it before: If you define the status quo as "the historic and continuing political disenfranchisement of women and Blacks in America ("the poor"), then it becomes absolutely clear that the election of John Edwards would be the clearest possible reaffirmation of the status quo.

The election John Edwards will reaffirm that the 35% of America that is white male still holds an absolute monopoly over the Presidency in a country that is 65% not white-male. That political monopoly has economic consequences that are obvious when you look at who is poor in America.

And that's why ultimately John Edwards candidacy, as an "anti-poverty president", will not not resound with me or with most anyone who is a not a white male.

by francislholland on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:40:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards doesn't offer me anything . . . (3.00 / 0)

Uh Huh. So what if John Edwards won the nomination and Barack Obama was his running mate?

by adamterando on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:15:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards doesn't offer me anything . . . (none / 0)

I'd be disappointed for a day and then work hard to get them elected... I am quite sure you'd be the same way if it was flipped. Edwards-Obama or Obama-Edwards would be a powerful ticket. Two likable, strong progressives with good ideas to better the country. If it comes down to a brokered convention and they can combine their delegates to do this, I think it would be a good thing.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:07:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards doesn't offer me anything . . . (none / 0)

Of course. But I was responding to Francis and his diatribe against Edwards. He believes that no progress can be made for minorities or women as long as a white man is president. So I put it to him, what if the vice-president was Obama? Would there still be no chance for progress for minorities or women?

by adamterando on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards doesn't offer me anything . . . (none / 0)

Fair point. I think he is wrong personally... afterall, It seemed like progress was made under Clinton and despite statements otherwise, Clinton was still a white guy. Besides much like Morrison, some Feminists have said Edwards would be the first woman president... a sort of offensive notion in my eyes, but the spirit in which it was made is that Edwards and his wife were strong supporters of Feminist issues. IMHO, they would be well served by all three and even moreso by the biggest progressive candidates... Obama and Edwards.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:14:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You doubt the poll data? (none / 0)

bsb, I've downloaded the forms, printed them out, and filled them several times. After voting at every opportunity from 1981 to 2000, I feel a tremendous ambivalence about this that I cannot explain. But, as I said above, I left the United States difinitively in 2000, after voting against George W. Bush, and I believe my ambivalence must be directly related to this oddysey and the things I have written consistently about at DailyKos and MyDD.

I organized voter registration drives in the United States and worked to elect the first Blacks to my local school committee and city council, testifying before the state legislature on behalf of "motor voter" proposals. And now I have chosen to live thousands of miles away and have not registered to vote in the country of my birth. I am among the disaffected, and now I admit it to you and to everyone else who may be reading.

I write to you daily, emploring you to make decisions and hold attitudes that will make the United States a place where I can visit again. I will vote in 2008 to make the United States a country that I can visit again. Otherwise, I cannot imagine anything that could get me reinvested in the country of my birth. I simply cannot stand it anymore as it is and I can only return when it becomes something that it has never been in the past - a land of equality.

Of course, other countries are not necessarily more equal than the United States, but I spent 37 years experiencing American inequality and injustice at first hand. With over a 170 countries in the world, I feel I owe it to myself to see what they others have to offer. At least while living in a majority Black country, I do not get stopped on the highway for "driving while Black" and no one looks at me strangely when I enter a restaurant or go for a haircut at a barber shop.

You have skewered me! You have identified the absolute irony of my cirumstances and of my choices and actions. But I prefer to live in moderate irony than in absolute misery.

Somehow, and with the historic nature of the choices to be made in 2008, I will have to overcome my overwhelming ambivalence and submit the the absentee ballot forms that your question forces me to confront.

by francislholland on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:12:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Given your behavior of months (3.00 / 0)

You are making a good argument for Edwards. Who wants you to come back?

by ElitistJohn on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:46:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So this guy (none / 0)

is trolling MyDD now? His antics ended up getting him autobanned from DKos.

by taylormattd on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:06:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So this guy (none / 0)

Yeah, but don't bring that up or he'll drone on and on about it again.

by ElitistJohn on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 04:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oops (none / 0)

oh sorry. Don't tell anyone I said anyting. :)

by taylormattd on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Awesome! (none / 0)

Vote Edwards - keep Francis out of America.

Hey, I'm sold. Where do I sign up?

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:02:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dude. (none / 0)

Most of us stayed around after 2000 precisely because it was bad, and we worked to make it better. Guess what, that's why we won in 2006 and almost made it in 2004.

I have zero respect for concern trolls who ran away when the going got really tough and now deign to lecture those of who were actually here on everything we're doing wrong, and how they have the deep insight allowing them to decide whom we need to support in 2008.

Sorry, no sale. And might I add that every one of these posts pushes me closer to supporting Edwards outright, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You doubt the poll data? (none / 0)

I have contributed money to the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton, even before she announced her candidacy, with the intention of voting for her in 2008. All of this may explain the considerable alarm I felt when various people in the leftist whitosphere argued that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama should run for President in 2008.

The combined result of following this advice would have been an all-white male candidate field, something that OUGHT to be considered inimical to the spirit and goals of the Democratic Party.

Thankfully, neither of those candidates listened to the advice they were given in the leftist whitosphere and now both of them are in the two top places in the polls.

Although I hadn't previously considered the possibility, I may still be registered to vote in the city where I voted last, against George W. Bush in 2000, before I left the United States.

by francislholland on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:31:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why would anti-war person support Edwards? (none / 0)

Why would you support Edwards who voted FOR IWR instead of Obama who always opposed it? That's what I'd like to know. It kind of flushes sends all the "progressive" "accountability" talk down the drain when anti-war people take that approach.

by francislholland on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:35:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would anti-war person support Edwards? (3.00 / 1)

I'm not anti-war, and I am an Edwards supporter. Sure, looking back, all of our wars except WWII were waged for silly reasons, and they shouldn't have happened, but there are necessary wars. Iraq wasn't one of them. Oh well. Edwards is for getting out now. Thats god enough for me.
More importantly, John is making an issue of poverty, which is the source of disempowerment. John is against mandatory sentencing, which Hillary supports. John has a plan for UHC, while Hillary only has a plan for getting all kids covered. John has a plan, that is already working, to pay for poor kids to go to college. John has repeatedly and in many ways shown that he is against draconian drug laws, and he is strongly against further trade w/out much stronger labor standards. Now, tell me how John would be bad for women and black people. Tell me how John would be bad for poor people, who are more likely to be single mothers, minorities, and children. I don't understand what your problem with him is, other than that he is a white male. If that is your only problem, then that says something about you.
Francis, I have been in near-poverty for the last few years (until a few months ago). I understand the indignity that comes with it. I understand the issues that poor black people face, and I'm in common cause. If I didn't think that John was going to fight to improve the lot of all poor people, then I would not be supporting him. If I thought that John wouldn't be a good president for minorities, then I wouldn't be supporting him. If I thought that he wouldn't be a good president for women, then I wouldn't support him.
What is necessary is to show how Hillary and Barack would be good for women and black people. Just electing them to office accomplishes nothing. What will they do, if elected, for the disempowered people of America? I have seen little of substance on that.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 04:34:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would anti-war person support Edwards? (none / 0)

HEY HEY HEY

The American Revolution was waged for a DAMN GOOD REASON!!!!!

;-)

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:46:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would anti-war person support Edwards? (none / 0)

Yep...in part, to eliminate inherited arisocracy.

Oh wait...you're arguing for Milady Billary, Rightful Queen by order of inheritance in the Clinton Dynasty.

I guess that whole "kicking out the royals/aristos" part isn't what you were going for. ;)

by ElitistJohn on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:07:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You doubt the poll data? (none / 0)

If Edwards was still a Senator, he wouldn't have spent the last two years doing what he has been doing. He wasn't elected to office, so he spent his time staying involved. I applaud that, but that isn't fair to compare that to HRC, OBama or any other candidate who have been serving their country in elected office (except for Clark or Gore and any one else who is currently a private citizen.)

And Obama does have an Iraq plan, a pretty good one. Might I remind you, the election is a long ways a way. Nearly all candidates do not release their plans this early in the cycle. Obama's (and HRC's and the rest) will come. Edwards HAD to release his because he needed some media coverage... he ran into a huge amount of bad luck and got knocked out of the headlines for his announcement by Ford dying. Otherwise, I would be money his health plan wouldn't have come out until summer.

And maybe I am missing it (and I will admit it is a possibility) but I am not finding a comprehensive plan for Global warming or for Iraq on Edwards site. Not saying ones don't exist, I just can't find them. If you have them, please post.

Dean was ahead of every candidate in 2004 on the issues.... just putting things into perspective... its a LONG time until the primaries... At this point there is no one who is a lock for the nomination.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ask, and ye shall receive! (none / 0)

BL: Now put your headphones on. We'll take some phone calls from our listeners and we will begin with Madeline in Brooklyn. Hi Madeline you are on WNYC with John Edwards.

Madeline: Hi, thank you for taking my call...I guess I am what you could call a single issue voter Mr. Edwards, and that issue is global warming. It's not that a lot of other things aren't extremely important to me but the implications are so dyer and so permanent. I was really, really inspired by what you said on the Tavis Smiley show that it is time for American's to get patriotic about something besides war. And you already got my vote just ideologically for saying that, and now I just want to know what you had in mind. Thank you and I'll take my answer off the air.

BL: Thank you. Can you get specific about global warming like you go specific about healthcare?

JE: Yes, I can. We are 4% of the worlds population emitting 25% of the worlds greenhouse gasses. We are a terrible example for the rest of the world. This is not a problem that can be solved by America alone but unless America sets an example it's impossible for us to go to the developing countries, China, India, etcetera and get them engaged in a serious way to address this issue.

I think energy and the issue of climate change/global warming are completely intertwined and so I like to think of them together. We have to get off our addiction to oil, we are using 22 million barrels of oil a day, and 12 million of them are imported. I think this combination of things ought to be done to deal with both those issues: One, a serious comprehensive long term investment in clean alternative sources to energy; wind, solar, bio-fuels etcetera. Second, and this goes to the callers question, it is time for Americans to be patriotic about something other than war and that means we have to be willing to conserve in the interest of our country. More fuel efficient vehicles, more conservation at home, more conservation in offices, I won't go through the details of that but we should set standards and require the meeting of those standards.

BL: Take me one step deeper though because I'm sure a lot of Americans wonder how much lifestyle change, how much economic pain, would it take for Americans to truly prevent catastrophic global warming?

JE: All these things work together but most of these things are, I wouldn't call them painless, but I would call them relatively painless - I think we, if Americans aren't willing to use more fuel efficient vehicles, we should mandate it and there should be a significant increase in mandatory fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. Now that means that Americans can't drive around in big gas-guzzling vehicles, SUV's, I think we can live with that. Some of the mandatory energy efficiency standards we ought to have in homes, I started this service organization called One Corps, we have thousands of chapters around the country, and anybody who wants to join it's an extraordinary organization. You can go to JohnEdwards.com and join One Corps. What we do is we have national days of action, for example we had an energy efficient day where my wife Elizabeth and I and our kids we went to Pennsylvania, we wrapped pipes in peoples homes, changed light bulbs - those kinds of simple things actually make a difference, especially if it is done universally, everywhere in America.

But I want to get to the last piece, because it is a critical piece and a more controversial piece. I absolutely believe we have to put a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. A national cap on carbon dioxide emissions. And I would do it under a cap and trade system where - it is market driven but I would put a cap and then over time ratchet that cap down because it has to go lower and lower and lower. What I worry about and what the caller worries about is that American's inclination is to put this off , you know, we don't need to deal with it now, it's an issue for the future. That is dead wrong. This is an intense issue for us right now! And if you look at the possibilities of a 4-8 degree climate change, uh, temperature change up, it's terrifying. Migration of millions of people. Political upheaval, not enough food, not enough water...

BL: But, if that cap goes down and down and down then unless there is extraordinary technological innovation and fast then it's going to mean more lifestyle change, isn't it?

JE: It can affect lifestyle, yes. But this is about the preservation of the planet. I do think that doing it with this so called cap and trade system, which is a market driven system, is what we use now for clean air, and makes it more efficient and less likely to have as dramatic a change.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You doubt the poll data? (none / 0)

Just wanted to share this with you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17565154/

Not sure what its worth, but according to this poll, character is the most important thing... only 1/3 look at issue stances. Hence why we need to fight the GOP when they try to label our candidates as liars or flip floppers etc.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 06:01:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.