Forget an Obama aide calling Hillary Clinton a monster. According to the Times Online, a Clinton aide has called the 27 states that Obama has won “boutique” and “latte-sipping.”
“One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama’s victories in ’boutique’ caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: ‘Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling.’”
It is ironic that the Clinton camp is calling Obama supporters out for having feeling; Hillary has plenty of “feelings,” which were very hurt at being called a “monster” by now former Obama advisor Samantha Power.
Over at the Daily Kos, founding blogger Kos took issue with the Clinton aide’s classification of states that Obama scored big in.
“Really, why don’t Clinton and McCain get a room already? They’re all using the same arguments… The rust belt is (from west to east) the states bordering the great lakes: Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. Of those states that have had a real contest, Obama won two (WI and IL), Clinton won two (OH, NY), IN and PA is pending, and MI is still trying to figure out how to have a real contest. Not exactly dominant… And what the heck is up with the ‘latte-sipping’ crap?”
Additionally, Kos has posted an excellent map showing which states each candidate has won.
“I see latte- drinking states on Clinton’s camp — California and New York! What an idiotic way to insult a bunch of states. And “boutique” states? Cute. Again with the ‘only big states matter’ b.s.
“That’s why Obama is the far stronger national candidate. He respects the entire country, not just a select few ‘pre-approved’ and ’sanctioned’ Clinton states. An assertion proven by the last SUSA poll, which proved not just a clearer path to theWhite House for Obama, but showed that he runs tighter even in states he loses. That matters at the presidential level, forcing Republicans to spend meager resources defending supposedly safe territory.”
As usual, Kos is right on the money. Democrats always count on the big states in a presidential contest, and for the past two elections, that hasn’t served us well at all. When Clinton supporters point out to me that “Hillary won California and New York,” I respond, “So did Gore and Kerry.”
The truth is, the election cannot be won on Blue States alone. Democrats need a candidate with Obama’s broad appeal, a candidate who stands a chance in states like Kansas, Nebraska, and South Carolina. The more “boutique” states that Obama wins (are there actually any boutiques in Kansas? Or, for that matter, lattes?), the less likely it is that a state like Florida or Ohio will have as much influence on the outcome of the next election.
To Hillary’s disadvantage, her opponents (both McCain and Obama) are running to be President of the United States. Hillary is running to be president of the states she wins, states like California, New York, and Massachusetts. Part of the reason for Obama’s mass appeal is that he isn’t condescending toward ANY state, whether he wins it or loses it, whether it has two electoral votes or 20. He went to Boise, Idaho. What does the Clinton campaign think about Democrats in Idaho?
“Superdelegates are not second-class delegates. The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic.” – Joel Ferguson, the Co-Chairman of the Clinton Campaign in Michigan, said last month.
Ironically, now that the seating of his state’s delegates is on the line, Ferguson had this to say yesterday: “Howard Dean is just wrong on this point… If the party is not part of the solution, they’re just kissing Michigan off for the general election.”
So Michigan might become a red state? Now Ferguson can have his karma, and eat it too.
Somehow, this man kept his job, but Samantha Power lost hers. She insulted one woman. Ferguson insulted millions of American Democrats. Democratic leadership in several Red States called for the Clinton campaign to apologize for his “second-class” remarks, but having done some research on this, I can’t find any evidence that an apology was made.
UPDATE: I did a little research and found the reason many of us never heard Ferguson’s insulting remarks are that they came on February 18, the very same day the Clinton campaign accused Obama of plagiarizing Deval Patrick.
Like Ferguson, the Clinton campaign has an attitude of changing its tune when things don’t go its way. Red States would matter if they were the only states Hillary were winning. Hillary would support caucuses if she did as well in them as Obama.
We already have a president who breaks the rules to suit his own needs. Been there, done that, Senator Clinton.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 15 Comments
Tags: barack obama, blue states, boutique, hillary clinton, joel ferguson, latte-sipping, red states, Samantha Power
-
-
Recent Comments
honjii on Wooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!! Brian on Wooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!
interesting.
i’m from a rustbelt upstate NY town. my family is union thru and thru – my dad was a shop steward, and my brother was not only a shop steward but a board member as well. i helped found a union in my area. i voted for obama, and i have absolutely NO idea what a latte is, much less tastes like.
i Do know what intrusive government and war taste like, though, which is why i would not support princess hillary. her votes for war in iraq and the misnamed “PATRIOT” act ruled her out in my book.
princess hillary was elected to the senate from one of the bluest of the blue states. she needed no political cover on the iraq and patriot act votes… unless she wasn’t thinking about her constituents here in new york, but potential voters in other places.
i (and many other new yorkers) feel betrayed that she clearly USED us in her quest for the white house.
princess hillary, please be aware, i am not some cheap whore you pick up in a bar (or a voting booth) to be used and discarded when you’ve fulfilled your need. i am a long time, registered democrat (35 years, to be precise) that expects to be treated with some respect.
you showed none, you get none.
hottunafan –
Your perspective is one i’ve been anxious to hear for awhile now. I don’t know many non-Manhattanite New Yorkers, so I’m thrilled you stopped by and commented. I can’t imagine how angry you must be, as a loyal Democrat, to have been used by Hillary on her quest for the presidency.
I hope you’ll drop by again.
opedna-
i assure you i will be stopping by. you’re now in the same bookmarks folder as the daily show, crooksandliars.com, wonkette and gawker.
i know a lot of non manhattanite new yorkers, and most of them are just as disillusioned and disappointed with princess hillary as i am. there is a very real sense of betrayal.
please do not lose your hope, idealism and enthusiasm and become cynical and self serving like most of us old farts have. we started out well intentioned, but i guess the lure of owning the latest appliance to put into our shiny new mcmansion was apparently too great for many of us to resist, so many of us sold out.
some of us still do try to carry the fire, but, as i’m sure you’ve experienced already, it is not easy trying to swim against the establishment tide.
when i see tens and hundreds of thousands of young people filled with hope and getting involved, doing what we once did, it’s like a shot of energy.
… and i thank you for that.
as the poet said, “carry the fire…”
— htf
This has gone on to the point where alot of us Democrates are questioning Hillary’s intentions. It was apparent before the March 4 elections that she could not catch up unless she had massive victories.. she didn’t. she gained about 11 delegates when she needed 50-60 to have a chance. The current standing means she needs to win every remaining state by 21% margins.. She is not polling that well in any state, much less all of them. Infact, Obama is expected to win at least 5 of the remaining contests. Why is she still here?????? It would be one thing if she had a strong advocasy possition and needed to get it out to the american people like kucinich, but she doesn’t.. Her dirty politics cannot win her the nomination at this point and I can’t help but wonder if she hasn’t become delusional. Her campaigns recent tactics and soundbites are right out of the Carl Rove election playbook. Even if she gets a revote in Michigan and Florida it won’t matter… Michigan will almost certainly go Obama and Florida she would only gain a narrow victory… She lost.. it’s over.. why is she beating up her parties nominee? The only possible way she can win is by getting superdelegates to overturn the election. Several democratic leaders have said they would leave the party over that and it will certainly cost her the november election.. So why is she doing it? is she dumb? an egomaniac? bought and paid for?? what on earth is she thinking at this point? My best guess is she wants the vice presidency, and if I were Obama, I wouldn’t offer it to her after all this crap.. and he doesn’t need to. He’s won.. he can pick anyone.. why pick a devisive figure like Hillary.
Well, she’s apparently trying to force her way onto his ticket, in a way that suggests it could also be her ticket, but who knows what kind of a ploy it could be at this point. As JB suggests, she looks like she’s trying to salvage whatever political capital she might not continue to lose as the race wears on. And it’s a shame too. Because it could have been a strong ticket, with all the support that Hill manages to hold on to, and the demographics of it and all that – and Obama could use the appearance of someone experienced in something, even if that something is just extraordinary skill in the art of good old-fashioned slimeball political maneuvering.
At some point Obama is going to have to overtake her much more decisively. If he doesn’t, I’m afraid that too many people will have no choice but to give in to the seductive appeal of any ill-fated deal. I think the other irony too, is that she would be much more subservient to a Republican, and utterly willing to destroy a fellow Democrat just to play at the top dog role. She really is a creature of the most dysfunctional aspects of the two-party system.
Montana: I agree Obama could use the appearance of a more experienced running mate, which is the only reason I’m worried about John Edwards as a running mate. He’s only had two more years experience than Obama in national politics.
I think Obama-Clinton isn’t a dream ticket, particularly when Clinton’s negatives are so negative. Sure, Obama would win back the handful of Clintonians who vow not to vote Democrat if Obama is the nominee. But he could lose the Independents and Republican crossover voters that make those “Red States” viable for us. Obama is a unity candidate, and Hillary has proven that she is not.
There are other Democrats–like Biden, Dodd, and Richardson–who have foreign policy experience, longer tenures in government, and appeal to Clintonians on some level.
Hillary’s problem now is that she has realized the trouble she’s in. No amount of trashing Obama has given her the delegate lead. So now she’ll act as though she’s playing nice, to try and make Obama look mean, like the night of that horrible debate in New Hampshire when he said “You’re likeable enough.”
The thing is, you can’t be a bully one minute and act like a wounded kitten when someone has the audacity to fight back. Those tactics are dishonest and insulting.
This morning I called Senator Clinton’s office in New York and told them that — as a long-time registered Democrat in New York — I am thoroughly disgusted with her campaign tactics and could no longer support her in any office for which she chooses to run, including NY Senator or President of the U.S. I have never said this before in my life, but I’d rather be a Republican than associate with the likes of her.
Rose,
I’m glad you made that call. I made a similar call about two months ago, hoping that my status as a previous donor (for her 2006 Senate re-election campaign, I’m now ashamed to admit, but we needed a Democratic Congress) would at least ellicit some concern from the Clinton campaign. I explained that I had decided to support Obama, mostly because of the Clintons’ dirty tactics, and that I had “flipped” several family members and friends from Clinton. I told them that I would have a difficult time voting for her at all, even if she were the nominee, unless she cleaned up her act.
Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign has proven that the only people it cares about are people who are exactly like them.
I hope that if any of you have friends in Pennsylvania, you are working overtime to convince them to vote for Barack.
op-edna,
i am so disgusted by hillary at this point that *cough* *choke* i would vote for mccain before i would vote for her cold dead heart. also, why hasn’t hillary released her tax returns? maybe because it shows where that cold dead heart really resides? i hope that more senators like tom daschle will speak up for obama and end this divisive doomsday candidate.
warmest regards,
jsc
Well, I am part of the “latte-sipping” crowd. I like lattes! Guess what . . . I can no longer afford $4.00 lattes thanks to our disastrous trade policies and rising gas prices – due in part to a war that Clinton supported. I’m so turned off by Clinton that if she wins the nomination I will change my party affiliation and won’t vote – or perhaps vote for Nader.
How about Geraldine Ferraro’s comments? How insulting toward Barack! Haven’t we had enough of the race commentary? Yet, she still wants to claim sexism from the media against Hillary. Hillary is totally playing the “sex card” with the older feminists. Honestly, would Hillary be doing as well if it weren’t for them? My mom almost fell into that trap. Thankfully, I talked her down and she voted for Barack.
Clinton has forgotten the most important thing for any national primary candidate to remember (if she ever knew it in the first place)…namely, that regardless of who the voters support, they’re all still Democrats. Even if they live in small states or “red” states (such a ridiculous term), they’re still part of the Democratic base.
And you’re right about her not criticizing states where she wins. I live in Oklahoma, which went for Clinton, and in reality it’s not all that much different than the other southern states except that a lot more Hispanic people live here. This is not a state that a Democrat is likely to win in the primary, and yet I don’t see Clinton decrying it as unimportant.
I understand the logic, even if it is disgusting – a candidate should never tick off the people who voted for him or her. But Clinton has forgotten that a candidate should also not tick off the people who voted against him or her, because they’ll be voting in the general election too, and a lot of them have long memories.
Personally, I think a candidate who shows such strong appeal in the traditional “red” states would be much more effective than one who focuses so heavily on the big “blue” states. Clinton doesn’t exactly show that kind of appeal, and even if Obama were on her ticket as the VP it still wouldn’t be there, if only because Clinton’s weaknesses would outweigh Obama’s strengths.
And that doesn’t even touch on Clinton’s other weaknesses in a primary race, such as how little real political experience she has, the fact that Republicans absolutely despise anyone named Clinton (just like Democrats hate the Bush name), the fact that a lot of Democrats don’t feel that strongly about her… I could go on, but what’s the point? The simple fact is that Clinton would have to wage a scorched earth campaign in the primary even more than she’s doing now, and that would depress the Democratic base while inciting the Republican base. Not a situation that the Democratic nominee should have to worry about, but I see it as a very real possibility if Clinton runs against McCain.
Hey! It is discouraging to see just how low the Clinton campaign is willing to go.
BUT—-What Senator Obama has reminded us of is that we can make a difference. That a positive world begins with us. When I get discouraged or need to be inspired again, I go to You Tube and listen again to his 2004 Democratic Convention speech or one of his other great speeches. And then I once again feel FIRED UP AND READY TO GO!!!
If we let them dampen our spirit, they win. If we stay positive and work for a healthy presidency, the world wins.
As someone who caucused for Obama in a traditionally Republican state, I’d like to ask how many people can the Clinton campaign continue to publicly alienate and still hope to have a chance of winning ANYTHING? I grow less surprised with each remark, and grow stronger in my conviction that I caucused for the right person.