What is the matter with Ohio?

Ohio screwed this nation in 2004, and now Ohio did it again. How could Ohioans vote for that woman? By voting for Hillary Clinton yesterday, you have almost assured the Republicans will win in November. Why? Because many, many Clinton voters will vote for McCain. Each time that lady opens her mouth she hurts the Democratic chances in November. What is worse is that Hillary is ultimately dividing (and destroying) the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama must run as a fourth party candidate in November if somehow he is denied the Democratic nomination. Barack can win as a fourth party because I believe his support (about 40%+ of the nation) is rock-ribbed (whatever that means), while the remaining vote will be split among Hillary, McCain and Nader.

It may even be that Obama is better to run as a fourth party candidate because Hillary and McCain (the two candidates devoid of purpose or heart) will take away votes from the other.

Discuss....

•  Please quit with the Personal Attacks

  She won fair and square, and if she wins the nomination we should fall in line behind her.

  by SaintPeter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:12:11 AM PDT

  •  'Fair and Square'

    ...in bush's vocabulary. lol

    by RedMask on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:13:34 AM PDT

    •  You know, I think I saw Bill in Ohio

      beating little old ladies and stuffing them onto the Hillary bus and refusing to let them play bingo = ever again = until they voted for Hillary.  How dare Ohio not support your guy.  Just who the hell do they think they are, Americans?

      You guys really need to get a life.

      by dkmich on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:22:35 AM PDT

      •  dk

        if you are not aware that Hillary lost (regardless of last night) the nomination, she is now doing a pretty good job of ensuring that Obama will lose in the general and that this is a source for concern, then I don't know what to tell you.

        by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:32:08 AM PDT

        •  Is this your first election cycle?

          If Obama will lose the general based on Hillary's campaign, then he doesn't deserve to win.

          Seriously, get some perspective.

          by zhimbo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:37:29 AM PDT

          •  Huh?

            by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:38:18 AM PDT

            •  Read your post. Read my post.

              See?

              You said "pretty good job of ensuring that Obama will lose in the general".

              I call bullshit.

              Pretty simple.

              by zhimbo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:40:20 AM PDT

              •  I don't

                The longer the nomination process goes on for Dems. The worse it will be. Hillary should have bowed out after super Tuesday and let Obama AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY unify in preparation for the general. Am I wrong?

                By the way, one simple point I would like to make: I am an Obama supporter, but I was one of those who would have potentially supported Hillary a long time ago. Not now, though. Hillary offers this country nothing. Let me repeat, she brings nothing to the table. I am from NY and I voted for her, but she has done nothing of substance for this state. She also probably voted for Roberts and/or Alito (I will check that). Nothing. I am sick of hearing people claim that she has all this experience or that she would be more prepared to answer the phone at 3:00 am. Give me a freakin' break. Please someone tell me what she has done that is so great. And before you ask, Obama's life is the story. Just as it was for Bill. His life is inspirational. That is what Obama offers. If anyone has a chance of putting the so-called war on terror to bed, it is Obama, not Hillary and certainly not McShame. And, Obama's life shaped his character and judgment, which I believe is far superior to McShame or Clinton.  Hillary = Nothing!

                by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:48:53 AM PDT

                •  I checked

                  and I was surprised to know she did not vote for either Roberts or Alito. I am sure it was pure triangulation.

                  by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:10:43 AM PDT

                  •  So she voted progressively...

                    ...and you respond by accusing her of dishonesty?

                    What does this poor woman have to do?

                    by Chicagoa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:15:47 AM PDT

                    •  She is dishonest

                      Are you not aware that Hillary has very little credibility in the truth-telling arena. Talk about misinformed, but Hillary is not known for her honesty.

                      by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:30:09 AM PDT

                      •  That's it.

                        You're a troll. You're just dumping on everything she's done, because you don't like her. You're not even thinking.

                        Just admit your mistake, without trying (lamely) to turn it back on Clinton.

                        by zhimbo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:34:30 AM PDT

                      •  Wow

                        Ok kid...

                        Spend 20 years in the trenches for Democrats and then you can tell me I'm misinformed.

                        But on an entirely different note, are you telling me Clinton could have the most progressive vote record in the Senate, and consistently be on the rights side of the issues, and do this for say, 10 years. And after that you would say "She's just doing it to trick us, she's not really a progressive."

                        I mean come on, it's one thing to have rational thoughts about the primary this is something totally different. You aren't analyzing the campaigns or the results or anything. You're repeating memes you've seen other Obama supporters use and you're attacking Clinton when the votes the RIGHT way because in your eyes it must be a lie. You aren't interested in what's actually going on, only in preserving your little fiction of the super-evil Clinton family.

                        :)

                        by Chicagoa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:35:52 AM PDT

                        •  Chicagoa

                          Huh? "Clinton could have one of the most progressive voting records in the Senate." Huh? "could have" or "does" Somehow I doubt she "does."

                          After 20+ years experience, are you saying you have never seen a politician vote in ways to fool his or her constituency? For example, vote for something before it goes to Committee and then when it comes out of Committee vote against it so you can take both sides of the issue, etc. Give me a break.

                          In all honesty, a long time ago I said that even if I didn't like Hillary she would vote correctly (i.e. to my way of thinking) in the end, but I can't say that anymore. BTW, I wonder if she voted for the 2004 Bankruptcy bill?

                          by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:42:38 AM PDT

                          •  Here's a link that seems to suggest

                            that she avoided voting entirely for or against the Bankruptcy bill.

                            Talk about progressive voting records. This was one of the biggest anti-progressive legislation, and Ms. Clinton skipped the vote. Bravo.

                            by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:45:09 AM PDT

                          •  Dude

                            I'm done discussing this with you. Perhaps I am being very unclear in my writing or you are deliberately misunderstanding me. Either way, I'm tired of being replied to with "Huh?"

                            I hope you have a good day :)

                            by Chicagoa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:46:43 AM PDT

                            •  you too (have a good day)

                              by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:18:07 AM PDT

                  •  LOL!

                    My comment yesterday was dead on.  I said that if Hillary started cheerleading for Obama today that people would impugn her sincerity, her motives and her character.

                    People are so very predictable.  That's why marketing is a billion dollar business.

                    by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:12:07 AM PDT

                    •  Hillary cheerleading for Obama

                      Huh?

                      by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:18:32 AM PDT

                      •  IF....she were to....

                        The marketing quip is because ads and marketing is all about pushing our buttons.  It wouldn't work if the public wasn't so susceptible to responding when their buttons were pushed.

                        The Hillary comment is about accepting a narrative, specifically, the Hillary is Teh Evil narrative.  It's a common enough one.  Anytime someone claims that you can never, ever trust Hillary to do the least little thing without some sinister motive, that narrative is in play.

                        by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:05:08 AM PDT

          •  I'm guessing that's the case

            Anyone who urges Obama to run as an independent is obviously oblivious.

            by BoiseBlue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:39:44 AM PDT

        •  Because John McCain

          wouldn't do that come Fall anyway? If he can't beat Hillary, guys, there is no way he can beat McCain

          by nrafter530 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:42:08 AM PDT

          •  He will beat Hillary.

            The complaint, in case you're not getting it, is that in her attempt to deny him the nomination, she is using slimy, often dishonest techniques, which do not advance the political debate, and which put him in a weaker position going into the GE.

            by NWTerriD on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:59:05 AM PDT

            •  Finally someone here gets it

              Way to go NWTerriD.

              by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:00:13 AM PDT

            •  The same slimy techniques

              McCain will use to beat him the GE anyway. If they work now, they'll work in November. There's no difference.

              by nrafter530 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:24:27 AM PDT

              •  Differences:

                1.  McCain is in the opposing party; it's his job to defeat the Dem nominee.  Hillary is a Dem; it is not her job to defeat the eventual Dem nominee, although she certainly seems to have adopted that as her mission recently.

                2.  It won't defeat him in the nomination process -- see my previous post -- he will still win the nom.  But when Hillary's sliming during the primaries is added to McCain's sliming during the GE, maybe it will defeat him.  The point is that the damage from the sliming is cumulative.  The total damage done is more if Hillary gives the Repubs a head start by sliming Obama now.  

                by NWTerriD on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:45:50 PM PDT

        •  Don't under estimate the power...

          I, personally, don't want Hillary or Obama and certainly not McCain.  McCain is a loony winger, and BO and HRC are both establishment centrists.  Over this, the netroot is eating itself and other Democrats, including Hillary.  I would hope we could be more like what we are demanding of the Clintons.  This site has welcomed, with open arms, Republicans who have voted for Bush (twice), just because they now claim they are no longer brain dead.  If you want to be angry, try them instead of your fellow Democrats.  Instead of putting their mea culpas on the rec. list, remember they gave you eight years of the Bush bull shit.    

          by dkmich on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:47:35 AM PDT

  •  She won but she is still behind in delegates

    by about 150.  After Hillary's Fear Card add, and I am sure they planted the Nafta Memo, along with all the other dirty tricks she has pulled.  She won't get my vote ever and a month ago I would have said otherwise.

    by pjbamerica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:17:24 AM PDT

    •  Exactly, she might have won the popular votes

      last night, but that did nothing towards winning the nomination. I wonder if the MSM will tell the public this.

      Also, most importantly, the rules of the game are to win delegates not the popular vote. If you don't like that then change the rules, but don't claim that she won the popular votes and thus should be the nominee.

      by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:23:30 AM PDT

  •  There is no chance of me voting for Hillary

    In fact, if she ever somehow "won" the nomination I would hope Obama would respect the will of the people and run as a fourth party candidate.

    After all, many of us are unhappy with the two-party system and the Democratic party in particular.

    by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:22:11 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, that worked so well

      with Nader in 2000.

      by zhimbo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:29:59 AM PDT

      •  I don't recall Obama running for Pres in 2000

        by NWTerriD on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:00:25 AM PDT

    •  I believe...

      ... respecting the will of the people would be supporting the Democratic candidate who wins the most votes.

      by Chicagoa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:18:07 AM PDT

      •  Chicagoa

        Please, sir or madam, get an education. The rules of the system are delegates and not popular votes. If you don't like it then change it next time around, but the rules are the rules. It has always been a red-herring since 2000 that popular vote matters. It doesn't; read the constitution and the 200+ years of American history. Then come back to me with your tripe about popular votes.

        by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:32:44 AM PDT

        •  Ok kid

          Lets try this again...

          I have an education thank you very much. I notice your first instinct is to attack me personally, and I submit that you have misunderstood me, as you appear to have been confused by just about everything said in this thread.

          The post I replied to suggested that Obama should "support the will of the people" by running as a fourth party candidate.

          I replied by saying that running fourth party wouldn't be supporting the will of the people if at the end of the day someone else had more popular votes. I didn't say that the popular vote counted in the election or the primaries. I said the the "will of the people" is reflected in the popular vote.

          Please, I don't want to fight with you. We're on the same side. I'm sure after the primary we'll both get behind whoever wins and work to fight the Republicans. Take a little time to read and understand what I said before attacking it. I'm sorry that downthread I suggested you were new. I looked at your UID and realized I was wrong.

          :)

          by Chicagoa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:43:00 AM PDT

          •  Madam,

            I am not aware that I said Obama should run as a fourth party candidate to support the will of the people. Rather, I urge Obama to run as a fourth party candidate because not only will he win in a four-way race, but also he could break the back of the Democratic Party, which would not necessarily be a bad thing. And, yes, I admit, from first-hand observation and experience I despise Clinton--both of them.

            by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:49:14 AM PDT

  •  Sure the NAFTA-gate bullshit was fair and square

    right?

    It was a bogus story and Hillary knew it. She was still pushing it simply to get votes.

    Rove did that all the time.

    by elender on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:22:30 AM PDT

  •  By the way, "Saint" Peter

    what personal attack did I make?

    I ask a legitimate question about the voters in Ohio, and, guess what, it appears based upon other diaries currently posted to DKos, that the voters of Ohio will never vote for a black man. There I said it. Was that a personal attack or an attack that some will take personally.

    by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:25:00 AM PDT

    •  Nice!

      "Voters in Ohio are racist!". says fightorleave.

      by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:26:51 AM PDT

      •  Well, are they?

        by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:32:43 AM PDT

        •  no

          by Chicagoa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:18:38 AM PDT

      •  Fabian

        I'm not the only one: see this recommended diary:

        Tonight I grieve for my country by DJ Fusion

        by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:34:30 AM PDT

        •  Hell, the title alone turned me off.

          Lose one little state and drape yourselves in black and walk around mourning?

          Boo fucking hoo!
          Racism is alive and well!
          Misogyny is alive and well!
          Homophobia is alive and well!

          In every state of this union, no less.

          Let me email you a box of tissues and a bottle of bourbon.

          by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:52:16 AM PDT

          •  Well, Fabian, maybe we just disagree

            Because I think it is totally legitimate to ask why Ohio supported Hillary? The nomination process was over after super-Tuesday. Now, Hillary is the one wrecking the party. You see, sir or madam, I truly want a Democrat to name the successor to Anthony Stevens and possibly Ruth Bader, but I will not vote for Hillary. I find her despicable and yes, dare I say it, Bush-lite. I find very little difference between her and Bush. She will carry on the status quo.

            by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:59:12 AM PDT

            •  Here's your easy answer:

              She won because she campaigned there and she put all of her energy into it. If that's so hard for you to understand, consider this:

              I am in Idaho, which is far whiter than Ohio (and has it's own history of racism and neo-nazism) and Obama won here in a landslide. Why? Because he's got people on the ground here, and he campaigned here.

              It's not fucking rocket science.

              by BoiseBlue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:03:57 AM PDT

              •  Huh?

                I see, so the media had no influence in Ohio? I beg to differ.

                by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:12:30 AM PDT

                •  You're clearly new at this...

                  Maybe after you get a few campaigns under your belt you wont have to title all of your comments: "huh?"

                  BoiseBlue and Fabian have been making excellent points all morning and you've just responded with confusion and a subtle allusion to some sort of underlying media/racism problem, without providing facts or links.

                  Maybe instead of asking whats wrong with millions of voters (Ohioans), you should ask if you really understand why they did what they did.

                  :)

                  by Chicagoa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:22:14 AM PDT

                  •  Huh?

                    you should ask if you really understand why they did what they did.

                    Ask who, what?

                    I am not new to this and submit I have a very real and deep understanding, but then again maybe we just differ. To pretend that my comments somehow reveal a newness I don't get.

                    by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:34:42 AM PDT

      •  Well, also sez the exit polls, if you've been

        watching any of the coverage.

        Add her playing up bogus NAFTA-gate story,

        Add her comparing the two "lifetimes of experience" on foreign affairs that she and McCain allegedly have, compared to the one speech in 2002 that Obama's entire campaign is supposedly based on (BTW, I just heard her say all this again on CNN, in all its sleazy glory),

        Add her lukewarm, non-denouncement non-rejection of the Muslim rumors (in a state dominated more than most by working-class, less highly-educated voters),

        And I think we can all clearly see that Hillary's momentum-changing, blowout victory in Ohio was exclusively attributable to Obama's indisputable inferiorty as a human being and as a candidate.  The adulation she is receiving throughout the airwaves this morning is SO due her.

        oops, gotta go -- can feel that bile rising again . . . .

        by NWTerriD on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:46:06 AM PDT

        •  Good thing you watch all those ads.

          I haven't seen one since Huckabee's Christmas ad.

          I feel sooooo unencumbered by the media bullcrap.

          by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:47:36 AM PDT

          •  If only the same were true

            of the voting public.  It would be nice if their votes weren't being polluted by the crap she's putting out.

            And it isn't ads I've been watching; it's the candidates' direct ccmmunications with the public -- speeches, interviews, etc. I kind of think being informed about what the candidates are saying, and how they are explaining themselves in response to questioning, is a GOOD thing. (Our caucuses here in WA state were a month ago, we're not geting ads here.)

            by NWTerriD on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:53:31 AM PDT

            •  I dig substance.

              Campaigns are practically substance free.

              I find that to be a very sad state of affairs, but lies and fluff seem to work much better than substance.

              by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:09:23 AM PDT

  •  Bah! Get lost!

    Fair and square!?  Preying on people's fears and bigotry is fair and square?  What party is this?  It was really rich watching MSNBC last night as Buchanan and... that younger Republican guy, were defending Hillary's "fair and square" tactics against the criticism of Oberman and Madow.  Republican's are coming to Hillary's defense!  Think about it.  As far as this "fall in line", like school children in a fire drill BS, I didn't become a democrat to play "follow the leader", like the Republicans do.  If the Dems field a cynical politician who is nothing but another blustering corporate shill with entitlement issues, than there will be a stampede out of the Democratic party.  Call it, "the great stomping sound".  Hey, what do ya think the damn party mascot is a stubborn mule, for?  Don't try and ride me to your hollow victory party, pal!  

    by pr0gressive on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:50:53 AM PDT

    •  Best point so far, pr0gressive

      Republican's are coming to Hillary's defense!  Think about it.

      Exactly, Fabian, Saint Peter, dkMich, zhimbo, BoiseBlue, THINK ABOUT IT.

      by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:03:36 AM PDT

      •  Dudes

        Both of our candidates are U.S. Senators, neither has run a clean or divine campaign. I have enormous respect for both of them. You don't see me tearing around this site attacking Obama, because I dont believe he's a bad candidate. In fact i think he is a very good candidate. So I just focus on trying to uplift my favored candidate and defending her from the rabid, frothing at the mouth attacks that come at her every day on this site.

        by Chicagoa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:26:58 AM PDT

      •  May the Republicans have gone post partisan!

        All bipartisan and post partisan and coming together for unity and change and all that good stuff!

        Does it really matter who leads the Singularity?

        by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:06:51 AM PDT

  •  Rush Limbaugh.

    That's "fair and square"? Keep dreaming. All those GOPers who crossed over to vote for her yesterday won't vote for her in the GE and we'll lose again in 2008. Is that what you want? Because with HRC that's what we get-a losing candidate. But "congratulations" on your hollow victories Clintonistas.

    by redheadedwoman on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:59:20 AM PDT

•  Bad idea.

  It would guarantee McCain's election.  The Rethugs will line up behind McCain, never doubt it.  Independents?  Perhaps a good percentage will go for Obama, but he'd need just about all of them, and that ain't happening.

  Yes, what is it about Ohio?

  by penguins4peace on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:12:14 AM PDT

  •  I would vote for McCain twice before I would vote

    for Hillary once.

    by elender on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:23:14 AM PDT

•  Yes, and Hillary knows this

  that is why she ranked McCain over Obama on March 3. She pandered to the temporary right-wing vote, and got her wish.

  We got screwed.

  by pkbarbiedoll on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:13:48 AM PDT

  •  She did it again today on CNN eom

    by NWTerriD on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:03:35 AM PDT

•  Ohio doesn't matter

  Democrats Abroad was the real plum!

  by jmknapp on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:14:19 AM PDT

  •  What does that mean, jmknapp?

    by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:26:32 AM PDT

    •  It just tickled me

      ...that Democrats Abroad was included in the "Eleven in a Row" mantra.

      by jmknapp on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:38:28 AM PDT

•  People People, Barak is still ahead in delegates.

  How soon we give up after last night?  It was that planted memo on Nafta by the Clinton campaign, and the Republican Fear Card add, she put out.  Ohioans fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.  Just like they fell for the Blackwell Secretary of State, playing with the election process in 2004.  They have been suckered again.  Don't give up, that is what HOPE is all about.  

  by pjbamerica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:14:50 AM PDT

•  Yep, blame the voters. Classy. (n/t)

  by Superskepticalman on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:15:13 AM PDT

  •  No one votes in a vacuum. It's a responsibility.

    NT

    by NotablyZen on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:44:18 AM PDT

    •  And a responsibility fulfilled when exercised...

      not for whom exercised. All votes matter, not just those for the candidate one likes.

      by Superskepticalman on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:05:25 AM PDT

  •  Who else should (or would) I blame

    That was the point of my diary: I blame the voters of Ohio for voting for that terrible lady. I also am honestly interested to know why people voted for Hillary. I just don't get. I was a 150% behind Bill during impeachment. I defended him until the last days in office. I voted for her when she ran for Senate, but  I dropped him hook, line and sinker when he cozied up to Pappy Bush. That was the last straw. And, let me tell you Hillary has been cozying up to those same people (Bush, Murdoch, etc.) ever since. She is despicable, and I will never vote for her, and that's coming from a lawyer who sadly knows that means a Rethug will nominate Anthony Stevens and/or Ruth Bader's successor. Shame on her and you if you support her. Yes, I said it, shame on anyone who would vote for her.

    by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:09:06 AM PDT

    •  Well, in Pakistan

      the lawyers took to the streets in protest.

      You too can join with your fellow lawyers and follow their precedent in defense of democracy!

      by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:04:56 AM PDT

      •  Interesting that you say Pakistan

        Because I have been closely following Pakistan since Dec. 27, and what I find most fascinating--notwithstanding, that Pakistan is a microcosm of the US--that lawyers take to the streets in Pakistan and many other countries--Kenya, Armenia, Ukraine, etc.--but in America we do not protest (anymore). I, and I imagine you will call this uninformed, simplistic or stupid, blame capitalism. I submit that America has been bought off with luxury and comfort. That is why we don't take to the streets. Let alone many of us are not even aware of the political decisions made in our name. I blame capitalism which encourages greed and self-interest. These countries where you see protest do not have wealth and thus they protest. Here in America capitalism not only makes people lazy but it basically buys them off.

        BTW, consider the fact that Pakistan's stock market is outperforming all its neighbors this year even though a-holes like Bush, etc. claim Pakistan is on the verge of instability and terrorist threats. I just wonder how much the stock market's performance is due to the billions that America paid off to Pakistan. In other words, as in America, money is used to buy people's silence. And the billions we gave them is being churned in the stock market just like in America. Our stock market is at record highs and yet many believe we are in a recession. What explains this other than that the stock market is not an indicator for the economy just an indicator for the amount of wealth in a nation.

        by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:17:28 AM PDT

•  Vote Fraud

  Hillary made a comeback in Ohio, but I am suspicious. Ohio has a history of vote fraud. Would the Republicans throw the election to Clinton because she is the person they want McCain to run against? Were there enough voting machines in Black neighborhoods? How many votes were cast on suspect machines with no paper trail? We have read stories of people voting for Kerry in Ohio only to see the machine register the vote for Bush. Did the Republicans rig the election for Clinton because they know she is a weaker candidate?

  Where there any shenanigans in TX?

  by tek writer on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:17:04 AM PDT

  •  Any Republican can LEGALLY

    vote in the Ohio Democratic Primary.

    It's not fraud - those are the rules.

    by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:23:19 AM PDT

  •  Oh, please

    Yesterday everyone knew Hillary would win Ohio. Now that she did, it's only because of vote fraud?

    by BoiseBlue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:24:02 AM PDT

    •  And what they describe isn't even fraud

      It's The Rules!

      Texas has Rules.  Ohio has Rules.  

      Watch people defend one set of Rules and attack the other.  I'd lay money on it.

      by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:43:02 AM PDT

    •  Margins were way too big for fraud nt

      by slaney black on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:46:39 AM PDT

  •  HERE WE GO AGAIN!

    You people are SICKENING!

    The DKos Obama Supporter Creed:

    1)I WILL BE A SORE LOSER

    2)I WILL BE A SORE WINNER

    by Saxman on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:50:04 AM PDT

    •  Way to

      avoid the very substantive issues being raised here.  Do you not have any response?  Do you believe that any scummy thing that one Dem does to another in the pursuit of the nom is OK? Are you not articulate enough to present a response?  Are you 12 years old?  Why insult instead of present a reasoned, substantive response?

      by NWTerriD on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:07:02 AM PDT

      •  Because...

        1. When Obama wins, you demand that others drop out. Ask the Edwards supporters on this site, as well as the HRC supporters. SORE WINNING!

        2. When Hillary wins:

        ---- The voting machines are fixed
        ---- The Bradley effect is at play
        ---- The caucuses are fixed in favor of HRC

        Hey - when HRC lost, I didn't see any of her supporters on this site bitching about voting machines, and sexism. SHE LOST!

        But when it happens to Obama, there must be foul play.
        SORE LOSING!

        SICKENING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        by Saxman on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:36:32 AM PDT

  •  Clinton won Ohio because Ohio is like that.

    Don't get paranoid now. Culturally, the state was hers to lose. Ohio is a state with a negative attitude. I lived there for six years and never once saw a school levy pass. Racism and belligerence are alive and thriving in the southern tier of the state, while the northern tier is culturally akin to upstate New York, Michigan and New England, where Clinton has run strong. Frankly, I'm surprised Obama did as well as he did in Cleveland, Toledo and Cincinnati.

    The race isn't over yet. Yeah, Ohio can be dumb, but Ohio hasn't decided everything.

    by Geenius at Wrok on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:17:40 AM PDT

•  How many diaries will there be today about Ohio?

  And will any of them say anything that doesn't insult an entire state of voters?

  by BoiseBlue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:22:36 AM PDT

  •  The source of the insult

    is why I ignore the insult.  

    Translation:  "Why didn't those people vote exactly like I would have voted?"

    Nothing like a little egomania first thing in the morning!

    by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:25:20 AM PDT

    •  Huh?

      Fabian, please explain, because what's ironic is that I did not make a personal attack, and yet you seem to be making one against me, please explain.

      by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:28:18 AM PDT

      •  "Me smart! You dumb!"

        That's what you said to however many people who participated in the democratic process yesterday.

        (<snark on>Must be an Obama supporter, because the Hillary supporters that I know are smarter than that.  But of course, I didn't mean that as an insult at all! <snark off>)

        by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:35:52 AM PDT

        •  Huh

          In case you haven't been paying attention, Fabian, Obama has been getting 4x as many votes as any Republican and handily defeating Hillary until yesterday in Ohio. I figured Texas was going to be close, but Obama was blown out in Ohio, so all I do is ask why. I still haven't gotten an answer. If my tone was aggressive or gruff then so be it, but the point remains: what is it with Ohio?

          They screwed this nation in 2004 and now they did it again. Those seem to my little pea-sized brain to be facts.

          by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:16:46 AM PDT

•  Those damn voters...

  Makes me partially recall a quote from Jesse Helms (and I can 'cause I'm from NC and never supported him):

  Democracy is great until it falls into the wrong hands.

  Kinda like when Bush pushed for democracy in Iraq and they voted to ask him to leave rather sooner than he had planned.

  The people voted.

  by teeb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:28:01 AM PDT

  •  Yes

    And, I wanted to garner some insight into why Ohioans voted for Hillary. If I didn't make it clear enough initially then let me do so again: please, Ohioans, tell me what possessed you to vote for that lady?

    by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:29:24 AM PDT

    •  Issue positions? Experience?

      Familiarity and nostalgia? Faith she can fight like hell in the general?

      I didn't vote for her, but it's trivially easy to come up with good reasons.

      by zhimbo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:34:38 AM PDT

      •  Well, OK

        "nostalgia" probably isn't a good reason.  But you get my drift.

        by zhimbo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:35:11 AM PDT

      •  I don't understand why you are making up reasons

        by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:35:56 AM PDT

        •  I was answering your question.

          You asked. I answered.

          by zhimbo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:38:31 AM PDT

      •  But a lot easier

        To just say Ohio is full of racists and that's what happened.

        by BoiseBlue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:36:50 AM PDT

        •  Well I mean it's not like

          any REAL Democrat would think SHE'S the better candidate, cause that just can't be true.

          by nrafter530 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:40:55 AM PDT

          •  Ys, nrafter, that is true

            No Democrat could possibly think Hillary is a better candidate than Obama on terms of issues, experience or electability. There I said it, and I believe it. Hillary is the DLC, corporate, over 60 candidate, while Obama is the progressive, modern, forward-thinking, power to the people candidate. There I said it, now go ahead and ridicule me.

            by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:18:36 AM PDT

    •  Thats not asking for insite dude

      thats asking for insults.

      please, Ohioans, tell me what possessed you to vote for that lady?

      by Osiris on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:52:21 AM PDT

      •  Oh, I get it

        People cannot take accountability for their actions, so they have to feign being offended.

        I think there are over 70 comments here and no one has answered my question: if you are from Ohio, why did you vote for Hillary? Seems to me a pretty straight-forward question.

        by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:20:17 AM PDT

        •  None of your business.

          That's first.

          Second:  Why would I want to set myself up for attack by explaining myself to a clearly hostile audience?

          If people were honestly interested, there were Hillary diaries for months.  Now, my vote is cast and counted and I'm happy that it is over.

          by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:01:40 AM PDT

          •  Ah, the truth comes out

            Thanks, fabian.

            by fightorleave on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:12:08 AM PDT

•  That would just split the Dems

  If Obama runs Independent, it will just split the party.  Anyway, this is silly.  You know he isn't going to do that.

  by noofsh on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:33:55 AM PDT

  •  I think it's an excellent idea to sink the

    Democratic Party. How many have bemoaned the two-party system. This is possibly the time to be done with it. Obama will win 40% of the vote in a general and Hillary and McCain will spit the remainder with Nader taking less than 5%. So, it is possible and probable that Obama wins the general in a four-way race.

    by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:37:26 AM PDT

  •  If I may ask, noofsh

    How old are you?

    Because I wonder if you are "old" i.e. over 40 (for the record, I am 39), and thus resistant to change. I don't understand people who claim the idea is silly. I thought liberals were committed to putting power into the hands of people rather than governments or politicians. If you were in favor of restoring power to the people, you should, I would think, be all for destroying the two-party system.

    by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:41:35 AM PDT

•  Because there are a lot

  of racists in Ohio.  Sorry to say that, but I seen that comment a lot in other blogs coming from Ohioans. Plus the Klan has a large presence in Ohio.

  by Mz Kleen on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:40:03 AM PDT

  •  Oh, geez.

    Everyone's a bloody expert all of sudden.

    I suppose that's why Michael Coleman(D) is the two term Mayor of Columbus, because we are all lily white racists or something?  

    by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:45:18 AM PDT

    •  Who are you, Fabian

      ARe you a troll?

      by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:20:56 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, right.

        This election season I'm a troll because I want to talk about issues and substance instead of rehashing the latest campaign gossip.

        So be it.

        by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:59:31 AM PDT

  •  Ridiculous.

    by BoiseBlue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:45:54 AM PDT

•  Ohioans woul ask

  what is the matter with the rest of the country? Since the 1970's Ohio as been one of the hardest hit by the loss of manufacturing jobs exacerbating by unfair international trade and the the growing power of multinational corporations to wreak havoc on families, communities and whole nations. Starting in the mid-1970's through the 1980's parts of Ohio suffered ravaged economies operating with unemployment at or near Great Depression levels. NAFTA continued the carnage, and the remaining manufacturing base continues to crumble under the Bush regime despite escalating givebacks from workers and acquiescence to corporate blackmail from local goverment in the form of tax breaks and cash inducements borne by the taxpayers.

  In the closing days of before the primary, HRC managed to sound off with stronger rhetoric on jobs and NAFTA, while Obama was caught mouthing the same tired platitudes about "free trade". Add to this the fact the parts of northern Ohio are still at least vestigial blue working class democratic areas with strong union roots, and it is not hard to see how HRC pulled ahead in the formerly heavily industrialized areas of the state with strong union roots.  

  by lightfoot on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:44:17 AM PDT

  •  I told people that "Jobs" was the magic word.

    Hillary listened.  Obama didn't.

    (Why is it sooooo hard?)

    by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:46:40 AM PDT

    •  Actually, the way I heard it

      Obama's and Hillary's positions on NAFTA, the economy and jobs, at least publicly, are essentially the same.

      So, people were apparently misinformed to think that Hillary's position somehow substantively differed from Obama on the economy, jobs or NAFTA. Or maybe it was the dastardly media?

      by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:23:54 AM PDT

      •  Hillary went to Appalachia

        Listened and talked about the economy.

        "It's the economy, stupid." should have been the basis of any stumping in Ohio.  We have a lot in common with Michigan with the loss of manufacturing jobs.

        by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:58:13 AM PDT

  •  So what you're saying is Ohio wants more of the

    same old politics that got them where there are already.

    by norahschronicles on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:02:39 AM PDT

    •  "Hillary's Rhetoric"

      not Bill Clinton's actions, in my post above. Please read.

      by lightfoot on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:41:29 AM PDT

•  Bunch of reasons ...

  One is that the Obama campaign fumbled on the NAFTA meeting thing. I know what was said probably wasn't a big deal, but you never want a candidate saying "no such meeting" and then having to come back and say, "well, there was a meeting, but that's not what was said." It makes it look like you're hiding something, even if you're not. And NAFTA is one of the hugest issues in Ohio.

  Another is that Clinton had a lot of institutional support here. Ted Strickland was like an appendage as she traveled through the state. Stephanie Tubbs Jones was everywhere for her. John Glenn was a huge endorsement. Not that Obama had no institutional support, but the biggest names were in Clinton's camp.

  The state is also filled with people with whom Hillary Clinton's message had resonated with throughout the campaign: lower-income, non-college-educated white people and a relatively large number of Hispanics.

  Of course, there's also the fact that people say they hate negative ads, but they obviously work. They have for a long time.

  The one I'm least fond of admitting is that despite many people here thinking it's crazy that a large chunk of long-time Democrats in the Rust Belt states are racists who aren't ever going to vote for a black candidate, it's still true. I've lived in Rust Belt states all my life, and I know many long-time Democratic voters who are not going to vote for a black guy. It's wrong and sad, but it just is. The numbers are shrinking, but old people vote.

  by Magenta on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:48:56 AM PDT

  •  saw this elsewhere, and thought it worth a laugh

    NON-OBAMA VOTER to ENGLISH DICTIONARY

    "He lacks experience" = "I won't vote for a black person."
    "He's all talk and no substance" = "I won't vote for a black person."
    "He's vague on the issues" = "I won't vote for a black person."
    "He's unpatriotic" = "I am a goddamned idiot."
    "He's a Muslim" = "I am an enormous farking goddamned idiot."

    by Maditude on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:10:03 AM PDT

    •  An exaggeration, but funny. :) n/t

      by Magenta on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:23:43 AM PDT

•  We elected Bob Taft twice, and Blackwell.

  By we I mean Northern Ohio and Southern Ohio, which should be two separate states.
  The voting pattern from Columbus south baffles even lifelong Ohioans like myself.
  The southern part of the state reliably votes against their own best interests. They must love incompetence.

  by manwithnoname on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:50:36 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the info.

    I gather you are from N. Ohio?

    by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:51:23 AM PDT

    •  Cleveland. n/t

      by manwithnoname on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:51:00 AM PDT

  •  Southern Ohio is part of the cultural stripe

    that runs from West Virginia through Kentucky and Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas. That should adequately explain its behavior.

    by Geenius at Wrok on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:19:52 AM PDT

•  Conspiracy Theory

  Let's get honest. The Republicans WANT Clinton as the nominee. In Texas, they simply voted for her. In Ohio, the Conservative Canadian Government got into the fray, mis-reporting a February 8 meeting (LONG before the NAFTA issue was brought up in the debate, and so impossible to be an ameliorating statement!) Clinton (W) has many ties.

  by MrMichaelMT on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:53:20 AM PDT

•  Hey we got beat, ok?

  So congratulations to HRC, and onward to Wyoming and Mississippi.

  by onanyes on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:58:19 AM PDT

•  You....

  .... not a Democrat.  This is why Hillary kicks Obama's ass with DEMOCRATS.  Your really need to get some perspective in your life.  Wow, I'm scared for Obama people today.  Maybe we cas set up some kind of hot-line, crisis intervention kind of thing. Get off the ledge Obama fans, this is good for Democrats (and good for the candidate Dems choose more often, Hillary!!!!!)

  by wsumike on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:08:23 AM PDT

  •  Actually, wsumike

    you are close to correct. I terribly fear for my country after last night. If Hillary wins, there will be no change. The wars will continue and the REpugs (I was about to say what little will be left in the next Congress, but if Hillary is the nominee many more Repugs will win than otherwise) will obstruct as they have been doing for the past year or so. Hillary would be a very weak president. I will also claim (no matter how much I abhor predictions) that Obama would end the wars.

    by fightorleave on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:28:58 AM PDT

•  Crossovers

  Fox News a few minutes ago asked Repub crossovers who had voted Dem to undermine Dem chances in the fall to e-mail Fox with their story.  Within just a few minutes, they received over 800 e-mails from people who say they did that.  

  by NWTerriD on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:39:28 AM PDT

•  thank talk radio again?

  how many hillary voters were republicans inspired by limbaugh and co to vote against the black guy? they have been working on that for weeks but the republican voters were still worried about their nominee v mccain- until now.

  the real story here is not be obama media relative to clinton media, it’s GOP/corporate media vs. democracy.

  with the GOP nomination nomination done and talk radio focused back on it’s primary goal of swiftboating whoever the DEM candidate will be, the republican-owned corporate media could get back to electing a republican, and at the same time keep media income up by making sure the DEM fight keeps going.

  by certainot on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:43:13 AM PDT

  •  When Obama got independents, you liked the system

    I thought the system sucked (still do).

    But now that the stupidity of the system hurts your guy, ISN'T IT AWFUL?

    What's good for the goose...

    by Saxman on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:47:17 AM PDT

    •  Darn!

      I was going to take bets on exactly that kind of flip flopping comment showing up this morning.  Too late.

      (Your comment is dead on.)

      by Fabian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:52:39 AM PDT

      •  i'm proud to be uncertain and when that means i

        have to flip flop no big deal

        however, as i said above

        yeah the system is a problem, but the talk radio media that progressives ignore because it gives them a headache to listen to it makes it a bigger one for democracy.

        PS the term flip flopper was created for talk radio and spread on right wing talk radio and repeated there until it moved into the mainstream to be used to denigrate kerry for having changed his mind in reference to a comment taken largely out of context.

        the flip flopper term is really a way to point out the difference between the leader with the royal certitude, the guy who never changes his mind because he's always right, the dictator or king like bush, and the liberal, progressive, or thinker who actually may change their mind when conditions or facts change.

        by certainot on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:51:51 AM PDT

    •  i'm talking about media, not election system

      yeah the system is a problem, but the talk radio media that progressives ignore because it gives them a headache to listen to it makes it a bigger one for democracy.

      by certainot on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:42:43 AM PDT

  •  Kos did the same thing in Michigan ...

    your vote won't count on the Democratic side, switch over and vote for Mitt Romney to keep this thing going. So, did Mitt win Michigan because of those antics? I doubt it.

    Also, Obama and his supporters have bragged for months that when independents and Republicans vote in the Democratic primary rather than their own it's because he transcends partisan politics. According to most people, he's benefited tremendously from the open system.

    Personally, I'd like prefer to see a system of all closed primaries. But that hardly would have been a good thing for Obama.

    The system is the system, work to change it or don't. But don't pretend it's been bad for your candidate, because it most certainly has not been in most cases.

    by Magenta on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:30:33 AM PDT

    •  talk radio manipulation is the prob I

      have with this, and the way it effects the rest of the media.

      dems/progressives have an unfortunate habit of ignoring talk radio while rove's  invisible hammers kneecap one candidate after another.

      they end up analyzing and strategizing in a talk radio vacuum.

      by certainot on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:58:18 AM PDT

      •  I agree on talk radio.

        It is a real problem. I am happy to have some progressive talk here in Columbus, but it doesn't balance things out yet. The end of the fairness doctrine was sad for me. I love talk radio, but I really preferred when it was possible to get more than