Both Clinton and Obama have a wide base of voters supporting them — that is in fact one of the key reasons this primary race has gone on so long. The demographics of voter constituency has been split in many ways and with many factors.

Quite frankly I am interested in uniting the party, and perhaps should aks are you? I certainly know also that Darrell is interested in uniting the party too. He like I, sees the importance of rising above the petty primary battles and working together to win the White House in November. So too does Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has said repeatedly that there is more in common between her stance on the issues and Obama’s stance, than that of John McCain. Barack Obama, as I have noted here in the past, has a voting record in the Senate that is nearly indentical to Hillary’s.

I’m with Hillary all the way, but I also firmly believe there will come a time in the near future when personal favoritism for a candidate will need to be cast aside to win back the White House. I hope you will keep that in mind.

If you haven’t heard, Clinton’s not interested in the VP position. Obama will fall on his face alone!!!! Clinton is the stronger candidate and should be the nominee.

These new democrats have abandoned many democratic voters, not just the white working class. They have totally alianated women, the key constituancy to winning the general election. Remember more women are democrats than men. They have abandoned the LGBT comminity, seniors and latinos. Obama has made no headway with these core constituancies.

Obama’s supporters and his campaign have clearly insulted us all and continue to on a regular basis. They appear to have no interest in uniting the party. There is no compromise with them and for all the bull shit about them being progressive, it just isn’t so!!!!! The only “ism” they acknowledge is racism, they little regard for the poor, unless they are black and they openly engaged in sexist tactics against clinton. There insults to her supporters will not be forgotten, because the exhibit the truth that they are not progressive by any measure, but are rather elitist and bigotted.

Supporting Obama who will not commit to universal healthcare, and who voted for the 2005 Bush/Chaney energy bill, is far from supporting a progressive agenda . Its not clear why they support him and most of them couldn’t tell you themself, but its not his progressive agenda, because he doesn’t have one.

(Actually, independents now far out number members of either party, and Obama seems to do real well with them.)

There is, in naive leftism, a sense that progressives are smarter than everyone else, that changing appearances can magically change substance, and that when this happens people like cousin Al who works for the oil refinery or Aunt Maybell who’s anti-abortion will somehow cease to exist or have any economic or political bearing. In short: there is, in naive leftism, a contempt for a broad spectrum of American human beings and a quasi-magical, quasi-pop-cultural collective power fantasy. Somehow, with the right slogan and beautiful candidate, humanity will change and all those people we don’t like will just go away.

The Kennedies were perhaps the first traditional Democratic (esp. east-coast establishment) power center to start tapping into this McCluhan/Warhol-era energy; if nothing else it is a great source of funding, press, and sympathetic protesters. Certainly the Axelrod/Ayers/Wright background of Obama’s is in this line as well.

However, there has always been one thing that has bothered me, not as a Democrat, but as a humanist and person who aspires to a truly open-minded view of others: the contempt. I’ve lived in small towns. I’ve worked among people of all education levels, social outlooks, and ideologies (or lack thereof). You either have compassion for all people – for real people, in their wide spectrum of ideas and experiences and attempts to make sense of their lives – or you have contempt for anyone who doesn’t agree with you. And progressive elites – including Dean, Obama, and the like – are firmly in this latter camp.

I’ll have none of it, not just because it will lose elections, but because it is morally and intellectually wrong. And it’s why I’ve decided that, as strongly as I support the Democratic party, I will not vindicate this elistist resurgence by voting for Obama should he be the nominee in November.

Like Jane’s Addiction sang – “ain’t nobody leavin’.”

One definition of a “low information” voter is anyone who actually believes that Change, Hope, and Unity (and “something different”) are wonderful, new, progressive ideas in American political campaigns.

And another definition is anyone who believes that Change, Hope, and Unity do not apply to women and the LGBT community.

Not only has Barack Obama a narrow base but, as Paul Lukasiak shows, he has not managed to make a dent in Hillary’s base, but she has increased her margins into his (Paul has the part on social class and education coming up).

This is very significant that even BTD, a self-described tepid Obama supporter, is concerned that Obama has not broken the 40% margin with white working class voters.

This should be something that party leadership and SDs should pay attention to.