Why does Hillary still hold on so well with working-class voters?
Is it a matter of differing policy? While the minutiae of their plans - minutiae commonly lost on people who don't seriously study politics - differs, their general ideas are similar.

Is it their views on Iraq? The general public is falling more and more against the occupation, and Obama is generally the more serious candidate about pulling out, so it's hard to see the war as the defining factor.

Is it the "experience vs. change" argument?  Given the serious dislike for the current president and Congress, you'd think that this argument would favor the "change" side amongst the working class, unless Hillary has secretly been winning the idea war for change.

If I were to answer the question as to why Clinton is still winning among the working class, my answer would probably start with the words, "Name Recognition."

First of all, Hillary is more popular among the Democratic base. That's working people, minorities (excluding blacks in this case), and women. Obama is more popular among the more educated upper class Democrats. That doesn't mean the rest of the Democrats are in any way stupid. They might even be less stupid, if you ask me.

I would say that Hillary is more popular with the base because she is more concrete and more familar on the issues while Obama is rather vague about what he will do and how. And he keeps talking about compromise and bringing people together rather than about fighting back.

Furthermore Obama has an awful lot of off putting supporters. Such as Andrew Sullivan, who was no friend to the working class in the 80s and 90s. And Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver and Oprah? Eh. Rich celebrity ladies are not all that popular among working people. And then of course the media is all agog over Obama, and the media doesn't give a damn about working people.

Offputting? Hillary Clinton has the highest negatives of any candidate in the race. Only George W. Bush has a more negative image, but he's not running. I doubt Hillary is as popular as her flaks and flunky would have you think. I think her only chance to win the nomination is to steal it in some back-room super delegate dirty deal. And that will spell disaster for the Democratic Party, because they will go into the general election with the most unpopular candidate, who sold out the legitimate candidate chosen by the people. It is the blueprint for a McCain presidency.

Obama is just as specific Hillary Clinton on policy. All you have to do to realize that is shut the tv off and turn on the computer. Thats the difference we are seeing in the democratic vote. Thats why Obama appears to be winning younger, higher educated people. Its because the people that have done their homework are voting in droves for him and that requires more then the blind eye the average babyboomer views as nessary to amke a decision. I am not saying Clinton supporters do not know how to use a computer. What I am saying is the demographics she wins with are not as inclined to do so.

The reason why Hillary Clinton holds so well among the working class is that she is perceived as someone who, well, actually works. Despite the vitriol aimed at her from various angles, even her worst critics don't deny that she works hard, really hard. The woman is a machine -- and I mean that in a good way. Obama? Well, he's seen as a nice-enough guy -- but a short record, not a lot of evidence of really rolling up his sleeves and getting down to business. There's something all easy-breezy about him -- and if you're working class (which is where I come from), you can't help thinking he's just like all the other "work hard enough to get by" charmers populating middle and upper management. And let's not forget that a large part of the working class are working women, who know who the real workers are in any organization -- and it's not the guys in the ties. Hillary is one of us. That's why we vote for her, why we donate to her campaign (even if we can't really afford it), and why we want her for President.

Why do all the pontificators on this campaign refer to "working class voters" when they really mean white working class voters? For the same reason that liberals like Susan Estrich question Obama's electability -- namely, racism. When Obama scoops up 80% of the black vote, that's not success with "working class voters"? In America, black people are always invisible, unless they pose a threat to business as usual. Then they're something to be explained away -- or at least wished away.

Indeed, I don't think working class people are such a firm demographic from Hillary. Working class WOMEN, yes. Working class hispanics, yes. Older people, yes. That's her base.

She's winning the overall under 50K demo due to name recognition. Obama can eat into that by continuing to dominate the national news and through ads and appearances.

Name recognition can only help, but I would say that Shrillary's advantage with "working people," (God, I hate that construct; are those not near poverty level "idle rich?") is that she does what the Democratic Party has always done since its inception: appeal to class and ethnic identity.

She's cashing in on a sense of loyalty to the party that always promises them goodies if they get in. She's Santa Claus.

Barack is actually - wonderfully - using his race as a way to say, "let's get beyond race and identity politics." That's what makes him so exciting and honorable.

Hillary is using fear: fear that if you don't vote for The Machine you will have X taken away, or Y not given to you. That stuff runs deep, unfortunately.

As for her advantage with women, which is slipping away fast, they are older women who have gone through the sex wars and finally want to see a woman get in.

A quick search of the Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/) shows that Hillary has sponsored or co-sponsored 150 bills in ~6 years. Barack has sponsored 113 in ~4.

This translates into:

Hillary Clinton---25 bills/yr

Barack Obama---28.25 bills/yr

It seems like they are equivalent in terms of being a "machine."
I encourage anyone who has time to look at this database and compare who has more fluff bills (over time) and post here.

Oops. That is 7 yrs for Clinton (2001-2007) and 3 years for Obama (2005-2007):

So the new totals are:

Hillary Clinton---21.4 bills/yr

Barack Obama---37.7 bills/yr

Seems like Barack is more productive that I thought.

Are they all equally valuable, equally-meaningful legislation?

They remember that times were flush when Bill was in office and they think putting Hillary in office will bring those times back. I didn't say it made any sense. You asked why they support her.

Like the subject line says---good question

I'm sure they both have similar ratios of meaningless legislation. The link is above, anyone with the time to sort through 150+113 bills should check it out!

It would also be nice to see who has more bills passed per year.

The original point was, though, that that's the perception, however misplaced it may be. In the end, it doesn't matter what you are as much as it matters what voters think you are. The past 7 years of politics play that out pretty well...

Get off this Hillary is just like me so I'm going to vote for her nonsense. Vote with your heads. Hell, I wouldn't want to vote somebody like myself into office. I would want to vote for someone who I thought was better than me into office. This Clinton supporter arguement "Because shes a woman like me," is straight out of the "Objectivity is hard to come by in America," book. THis idea is olds school, outdated, and will cost the democrats their election if their so inclined to actually believe it.