The USA Today headline -- "More than half of Clinton backers still not sold on Obama" -- was more than a trifle misleading, and the story's lede wasn't much better: "Fewer than half of Hillary Rodham Clinton's supporters in the presidential primaries say they definitely will vote for Barack Obama in November."
Upon reading that, yet going no farther, one is apt to promptly belch forth, O Sweet Mary Mother of God, this is the End Times, panic time, or at least passport-renewal time. Obama is going down. His would-be forces are so badly divided, failure is the only option. And upon that thought, the story would have had its intended, bracing effect.
If, on the other hand, you are one of the gallant few who thunders ahead, you would actually find a whole different story, to which, I guess, only the plucky are deserving: "In the [USA Today/Gallup] survey, taken Thursday through Saturday, 47% of Clinton supporters say they are solidly behind Obama, and 23% say they support him but may change their minds before the election. Thirty percent say they will vote for Republican John McCain, someone else or no one at all."
Whoa. Now that's not quite the "fewer than half" tone presented in the opening segments, which is, as students of journalism know, as far as most readers get. No, suddenly we find that it's actually 70 percent of Clinton supporters who now back Obama, although a minority adds the reasonable proviso that they "may change their minds before the election." Yes, and John McCain may decide before then that he wants Prof. Ward Churchill on the Supreme Court, is just wild about socialized health care, and is giving all of Cindy's hooch-loot to the DCCC.
So fundamentally, in the real world the number of former Clinton supporters who are presently Obama supporters is roughly three out of four. Perhaps even more; the current polls on the doggedly disaffected are less than stable, just like the doggedly disaffected.
The Guardian's columnist/editor Michael Tomasky, for instance, yesterday cited a 20-percent figure for those who "still say they're planning to vote for McCain" (whether this number includes possible stay-at-homers, as the USA poll did, I don't know), commenting with blistering lucidity that "this is childish and ignorant beyond belief…. In a more just world, Obama would be able to stand at that podium and say: 'Are you people nuts? You're going to vote for a man who'll appoint supreme court judges who'll outlaw abortion rights because you're mad at me and Howard Dean?'"
Nevertheless, whatever the glissando statistic actually is -- 20 percent, 30 percent, or anything in between -- the number is still pre-convention, pre-Hillary's speech, pre-Bill's speech, pre-roll-call vote, pre-presidential debates, pre-pretty-much-everything that is likely to make a profound difference to conscientious (a key adjective), diehard Hillary supporters well before November rolls around.
The more they learn about McCain (turns out, for example, that the Hillary supporter now appearing in a McCain television ad didn't know he opposes Roe v. Wade), the more they'll begin to belch, O Sweet Mary Mother of God, do I really want to help put another menacingly halfwitted George W. Bush in office?
As Gov. Ed Rendell told USA Today: "I know a lot of hardened Clinton delegates who are going to be OK, they're going to wind up supporting Sen. Obama. But they want to cast their votes for her…. I think that'll make it easier for there to be closure."
I've never been a big believer in the sentimental, psychobabblish goo of "closure," but here the good governor is probably on to something. Let the Clintons speak, let the symbolic vote take place and all that, and then, Hillary's universe of lay voters should swiftly begin to conform attitudinally to Hillary's delegates, who were, it just so happens, themselves recently polled by New York Times/CBS News.
"More than half of the delegates that Mrs. Clinton won in the primaries now say they are enthusiastic supporters of Mr. Obama…, the poll found. Three in 10 say they support Mr. Obama but have reservations about him…. Five percent say they do not support him yet."
Yet. And they may never support him. And who knows what the final statistical tally of Hillary's recalcitrant supporters will be overall. Maybe the same five percent. Maybe less, maybe more. There is, of course, absolutely no way of knowing right now. But, as I have before, one thing I can guarantee you with absolute certainty: the media will cast the ever-diminishing number of rabidly anti-Obama Hillaryites as a swarming, even lethally antagonistic horde. It makes for great copy.
In the meantime, is it incumbent on us to pamper and coddle and woo this ultimately recalcitrant crowd? I don't know about you, but it isn't on me. For they are beyond hope; they are, as Rachel Maddow called them last night on MSNBC, "post-rational" -- and "no," she then snapped at Pat Buchanan, "I'm not trying to 'win them over,' but I am winning this argument." It was a hoot.
If, however, you'd prefer an argosy of counterfeit sympathy for Hillary's dead-enders, just flip over to FOX/RNC News some evening this week; because, as I also discovered last night, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity could not be any sadder or more upset about their misfortunes. And that was even more of a hoot.





Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Were they ever REALLY Democrats?
Let's watch the Clinton ship....
...pass into it's presidential twilight this week. Bon Voyage
Her career is taking another route. Like Ted Kennedy, she may be able to do more good for her country in another capacity than she could as President. As for tonight and tomorrow, She and Bill are too professional to "F" the convention up...and realize it's in their best interest not to do so.
As for Hillary's PUMAs, they belong in the jungle - preferably with other proto-cerebral hominids@!
Can't let it go, huh, PM?
All of which beg the question ......
If they're irrelevant, if they should be ignored (or even further insulted), if they're "fewer and fewer by the day", if Obama's going to win in a "blowout", then why do you insist on beating the proverbial dead horse? Unless .............. for some reason ....... you're worried that, instead of your prophetic "blowout" forming in the next 10 weeks, in reality you need every single vote you can get to win.
"Laughingstock", PM?!?!?!? PM ..... just a few days ago you spoke of your attempts to lower your "journalistic standards," as if you were a real journalist.
Then again, ............
......... when it comes to "laughingstocks", that inference alone qualifies you as an expert witness.
Maggot McCain Y(es)man
Right on cue ....
Maggot McCain Y(es)man
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Where are you going to get material when the kids are back to school in a few days?
Maggot McCain Y(es)man
"Hard work"?!?!?!?!"
Please, Norm ................ I actually feel a little guilty.
Like I'm picking on the kid from the back of the intellectual "short bus".
So, Yman - is THIS How You Support Obama Now?
With friends like you, the Desperate-to-Still-Be-Relevant-Clintons and all their die-hard supporters, Obama doesn't need enemies...
"Doc" - I said I would vote for Obama, ....
What makes you think that has anything to do with the Clinton-haters? I know you're easily confused, but don't make the mistake of thinking that voting for Obama is the same thing as being on the "same side" ..... it should be a simple distinction .....
.... even for you.
BTW - I saw your posts on holding Obama to his word on filibustering the "Rethug-lite" FISA "compromise".
How'd that work out for you?
laughingstocks
James: The Message is "Change".
One Question.
Maggot McCain should make Hillary his VP Candidate
Time to purge'em outta the party
Respecting their beliefs
Emotions vs. Common senseand/or reason