Hillary Clinton's extended warranty plan on the status quo?

The Des Moines Register reports:

Obama, an Illinois senator and his party's frontrunner, was the choice of 53 percent of Iowans who plan to vote in November. McCain, an Arizona senator, was the choice of 36 percent of Iowans in an Obama-McCain contest.

However, if the choice voters have in November is McCain vs. Clinton, the new poll shows 49 percent of Iowans would choose McCain, compared with 40 percent who would choose Clinton.

That's right, Obama beats McCain in Iowa -- a swing state -- by 17 points.  Hillary Clinton LOSES to McCain in Iowa by 9 points.  That's a 26 point advantage for Obama in Iowa against John McCain.  Given all the other state polls showing essentially the same result, I'd say it's pretty much case closed at this point on the electability argument.

I was hoping she'd stay positive, make her argument, and hope for the best.  If Obama is the nominee, she has weakened the party significantly by further dividing the two groups with this.  Obama is clearly trying to focus on the general.  Hillary should be running that way as well: not why Obama is unfit to be President, but why McCain is.

The positive campaign has really been a great thing for the Democratic party as a whole.

The attack is coming from some of Sen. Clinton's supporters as well.  The president of a union calls us "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies."  I wish I were a trust fund baby.  

to me.

a key component of the Democratic coalition... frustrated by the fact Senator Obama is further to the right on trade than Hillary. Wish I could afford a Prius, or that there was a Birkenstock store west of Roanoke...

Different cultures, same Democratic Party.

Like he was attacking people who want to drive eco friendly vehicles.  I agree with Lowell, it definitely resembles past Republican lines about Democrats.

It's simply frustration at the fact that there are many seperate constituencies in the Democratic Party, and an astounding divide between urban and rural, protectionist and free trade Democrats.

Several of you applauded a post a few weeks back, publicly berating State Senator John Edwards for his gun show loophole vote. That's the culture of many Democrats, Independents, and Republicans in his district, but you berated him.

Ingrid indicated that this union boss was a Democratic Clinton supporter, not echoing a Republican attack line, but seems to be voicing his belief that Senator Obama's early supporters seem to be more urban, white-collar, free-trader, wealthier Democrats rather than the culturally different rural, protectionist, blue-collar, less wealthy Democrats.

I don't necessarily agree with that assessment... my comment intended to highligh the plausible reasoning behind the union boss's comment.

he was still attacking people who drink lattes and drive eco-friendly vehicles.

As far as John Edwards goes, there is huge difference between attacking someone for their vote on gun show loophole bills and attacking them over driving eco-friendly vehicles and drinking lattes.

Typical Clinton-supporter BULLSHIT (yeah, I'm using the word).  Just because I support Obama does not mean that I'm wealthy.  But because I'm a poor college student, I'm only supporting Obama because "I've been brainwashed by the cult of Obama."

This is from Wal-Mart Hillary, who time and time again faced what Wal-Mart did to it's workers, and did nothing.

and financially pretty well off. I support Senator Clinton, as we've established. Now that we've invalidated those stereotypes, lets move on...

you two call me Aznew, Sir, even as you are trashing my arguments. :)

In the U.K., the title "Sir" reflects some sort of distinctive achievement.  In this country, "Sir" is most often used in bars and nightclubs as a subtle reminder that you've grown too old for casual sex with women under 40.

You might want to request a different title.

Obama is doing 26 POINTS better than Hillary in rural Iowa.

That line of attack is from the Club for Growth.

A 2008 Ford F-150 costs $25,375.
A 2008 Chevy Suburban costs $39,025.
A 2008 Hummer H-3 costs between $30,595 and $39,160.

I'm not sure I see the point here, beyond a cheap shot at people who drive Priuses (why, because they get better gas mileage? what's the basis of the attack here?).

to get 40 miles per gallon?

Attempting to characterize that union boss' comments as an assault on environmentally friendly cars is invalid. I can't think of many people who oppose environmentally sound technology... but by framing his comments as an attack on something everyone agrees with, you diminish the union boss' credibility. In characterizing it as an assault on environmentally sound technology, you're framing the debate in a way that only your side can win. Republican's traditionally have used it with lines like "Are you against free enterprise?" and "Don't you want to fight terrorists?"

At most, it was probably an assault on purchasing foreign-made... increasingly irrelevant given Toyota's investment in US-based assembly plants.

that you wear Birkenstocks, drink lattes and drive a Prius? :)

I wear boots, drive a used station wagon, and drink my coffee black from the campus coffee shop.  I plan on heading to law school and being thousands upon thousands of dollars in debt.  And I support Barack Obama.

The former president called us "impressionable elitists" for supporting Sen. Obama. On another occasion, he said that people in a certain salary bracket perhaps "don't need a president". It's bizarre.

Not that there's anything wrong with any of those things, but who the hell cares if you drink lattes or drive an environmentally friendly car?  HAHA at trying to use that as an insult.

I drink a latte once in a while, but I drive a 1991 Honda and have a bunch of Dem stickers on the back. I've been poor most of my life, but am doing better now. I know what its like to have to make a living working for minimum wage. One thing I don't do is stay in four star hotels like the Clinton staff do when they are on the road.

It is an attack from Tom Buffenbarger, the controversial president of the Machinists' union.

It is an unfortunate allusion to an attack ad that ran against Dean in 2004.

See here:

Story on Buffenbarger:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...

2004 anti-Dean ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

And dangit, if that is the case...
WHERE is my prius, trust fund, & birkenstocks!!! I feel so cheated!

I HATE when people "label" groups. It's ignorant and something I expect from the right. That was yet another boneheaded move by their camp & supporters.

"We are the people our parents warned us about"-Jimmy Buffett

I HATE when people "label" groups. It's ignorant and something I expect from the right. That was yet another boneheaded move by their camp & supporters. (emphasis added)

I'm with ya. I hate it when people do that.

If the show doesn't fit??? How can you think the campaign hasnt been making some pretty dumb moves on the stump? I expected a lot more from HRC.

"We are the people our parents warned us about"-Jimmy Buffett

I'm on record on this blog - I do think the campaign has made plenty of dumb moves. I think this guy's comments are idiotic.

I was, obviously, commenting on your criticism of them as labeling groups, when just a few words later, you label groups. Of course, you can't put this one off on her campaign, since this is a union president over whom Clinton or her campaign exercises little control.

If you had said, for example, "...yet another boneheaded move by one of her supporters," well, then, that would be a different kettle of fish, although it would be stating the obvious.

So, you decry an entire group of people (Clinton supporters) with the comments of a single Yahoo, while decrying the evils of labeling.

I was impressed.

Wow! She is just like an ALCOHOLIC PARENT! Every bit of hope and optimism has to be stamped into the ground! Then you must be mocked and humiliated publicly. Any hint of the spiritual life or aspiration to higher ideals must be destroyed, destroyed, destroyed!

These types are even jealous of Baby Jesus at Christmas time. That's why they always fall into the Christmas tree. Its all about ME ME ME!!

that she wants to run for President again in four years, not eight?

Every time I'm ready to forgive her and she pulls something like this. Every. F***ing. Time.

I'm officialy done with the Clintons. They love America all right, but it comes a distant second to themselves.

See here:

Here's another direct quote from Hillary Clinton on NAFTA. The Associated Press reported on  3/6/96 that she said, "NAFTA is proving its worth" and later praising NAFTA as "a free and fair trade agreement."

Oh yes, a very "fair" trade agreement, absolutely wonderful.  Go NAFTA!!! (snark)

Apart from the playfully mocking tone, I think it is actually helpful for her to try to lower expectations and remind everyone how hard a task is set for the next President.

Ladies and gentlemen, there's a war on.

After going through a litany of lofty goals for a new generation to strive for, including health care for all Americans, a rejuvenated public education system, an end to poverty and real progress in dealing with global warming, the senator offered a hard and simple truth:

"All of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq."

http://select.nytimes.com/2007...

It's going to take two years to do that, and another year to figure out how to change the tax code.  At least that's what I think.  So the goal has to be to get a Democratic super-majority in Congress, and hold it.

Why would Hillary Clinton ridicule Barack Obama's supporters?  In her best case scenario, she is going to need them in the future.  She is getting really, really bad advice.