Why'd She Win?
Hells if I know. You tell me. (In other words, this is an open thread.)
Advertisement
Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!
Ads are how we pay the bills!
The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars
House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor
Special Guests
Big names and big brains
Special Features
Pressing topics and trends
Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.
All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.
Well, it was probably the NAFTA kurfuffle.
March 5, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly the NAFTA kerfuffle was a big deal (a mega-kerfuffle?) in Ohio, but probably not so much in Texas. So how to explain Texas? Maybe she's just a better candidate than the man-whose-middle-name-we-mustn't-pronounce.
.
By the way, NAFTA is just a signifier for free trade, which is hugely unpopular (as it should be) everywhere but along the coasts. Neither Clinton nor Obama offer any really hope of killing off NAFTA or the WTO. And McCain loves them. So we between-the-coast folks all still massively screwed, no matter what.
March 5, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
However, the entire bruhaha had implications beyond NAFTA. It landed a huge blow on Obama's credibility. In that sense, this is not over. The negative attacks will continue to undermine the image of honesty that Obama had until recently maintained.
March 5, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Calls by Obama supporters, echoed in the media, that she had to win big or drop out motivated her base. That's not the only reason, of course, but I think that Obama's supporters do need to realize that Clinton can inspire passionate support as well. Supporters of both candidates should probably agree that this primary is going the distance and any call by one side for the other to drop out is likely to backfire.
March 5, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
In response to destor23:
I think you're right, that her base is passionate and motivated. This is a good thing for her, and makes it palatable to me (Obama supporter) to see her soldier on. But it's only a temporary lift, as the campaign will now hinge on how well her tactics will hold up. It's going to swing back to being about who she is as a person, not what reproductive organs she happens to have.
I just saw a clip of her comments that frame her argument going forward, and I see vulnerabilities.
The talking points seem to be nothing suprising, as she's been hitting this for a while:
-- two wars abroad
-- recession at home
-- don't pick the newbie, pick me because I bring experience and scar tissue.
The problem this formulation gives me is two-fold. It's essentially a negative way to frame the messages -- be afraid, vote for me. And, it's also not much different from the way the Republicans have been governing for the past 8 years. McCain might be a bit more of a happy warrior, but he's already appealing to fear and anxieties. In this respect, I don't see much difference between the basic world-view of the GOP and Hillary Clinton. It's why she can justify and rationalize going negative and, I would submit, taking liberties with the truth. While all tight campaigns produce similar tactics on all sides, she seems to revel in it.
Again, world view.
I think the challenge for Obama is to respond on a couple of levels. One is to show that he's not a wimp that'll cave under the pressure of attacks from a campaign that clearly doesn't feel constrained in its methods. Fine. I'm sure the Republicans will do the same thing (same world view), so it's not all bad.
But he's also got to respond with some grace under fire, and show that while he knows how to smack her in the face when required, that he hasn't lost sight of the inspirational elements of his candidacy.
I do think her base -- women, basically -- are very involved right now, and the subtext of the contest is definitely how we'll balance out questions of gender and race. For a large number of women, the idea of a woman president is almost more important than any other consideration, and this is leading to some selective vision when it comes to THIS particular woman. Obama has the job of painting a picture of her flaws now, just as she's done to him. I suspect a lot of women will be interested in this process, too, because she's not universally loved by women.
I don't agree with one meme that's out there, that she's been vetted and we already know everything there is to know.
What we know of her is heavily influenced by the caricature that was successfully superimposed over the real Hillary Clinton by the GOP propagandists. There were elements of truth in the caricature, though, as there are in any good caricature. What will happen in the next 6 weeks will be a battle to redraw the image of Hillary Clinton, and to peel away the caricature and to redraw the blank bits with some new, updated perceptions.
For instance, Rhonda Crhiss Lokeman of the Kansas City Star wrote this morning (syndicated column; not online yet):
"Clinton demands accountability but won't provide it. Obama released his tax returns; she won't. this financial disclosure helps voters make informed choices.
"Clinton touts her White House experience, but in Ohio, she claimed she can't provide records from those years because the Bushies won't release them. The Bushies, no fans of transparency, claim the clintons aren't being truthful..." and so forth.
Oh, yeah, there's a lot to learn, and relearn, about Hillary. She likes to play the tough survivor, but she's in for some rough play on new disclosures. The Clinton "experience" rests of a solid foundation of bad judgement and questionable character flaws.
How she has run her campaign so far, with the perception that her attacks were much more unfair than his in Ohio and Texas, for instance, also will be fair game. And women will have to make a decision between the abstract desire -- quite understandable and genuine, in my view -- to prove the point that a woman is capable of being president, and the concrete reality of who Hillary Clinton is, and what kind of president she would be.
But you're right: challenging Hillary's right to run with any whiff of condescension or misogyny is going to drive her base to extremes of loyalty. What Obama has to do, and what I think is actually going to happen, is to push back against the false personas and hypocrisy she's been hiding behind, and to make the case that who she is as a human being is a legitimate cause for concern.
This is an important issue to fully air, and for that reason, I'm not crushed that we're now coming to my state, Pennsylvania.
As Rhonda Lokeman, in a previous column lays down a challenge to other women:
..."Some female supporters strongly believe that as a woman, you have to vote for THIS WOMAN. Behind all the testosterone-charged chatter on cable news is the murmur of our own “Va-Jay-Jay Monologue.” If you’ve got one, you must vote for Hillary or else you’ll betray your sex.
If you don’t back THIS WOMAN, beware! The secret society of the sisterhood of the traveling rants is coming for you." (Secrets of the blah-blah sisterhood: http://www.kansascity.com/279/story/492990.html
The "murmur" is what's buoying Hillary up, in large part. There's a quiet kind of female triumphalism going on, very different from the male kind, but no less obnoxious because it's no less sexist. It's what saved her butt in New Hampshire, and now in Ohio and Texas, in large part.
But now we follow the traveling circus and continue the great national discussion. It's a process, folks, and we're getting closer to the truth of things.
March 5, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your analysis here is very good. I think you've been especially observant in identifying the importance of world view and the fact that Hillary Clinton's world view is not dissimilar from that of John McCain or the GOP. Obama needs to make this central to his message going forward.
I also think you've definitely hit on something with respect for the female vote. To relate to this anecdotally, my mother is a life-long Democrat. We discuss politics frequently. At the end of the day, she picked Clinton over Obama. She is a very intellectually honest person and she freely admits that it is because she's a woman and she knows that she will probably never have another chance in her life to vote for a woman with a viable chance of getting into the White House. But to be clear, the final decision had nothing to do with the merits of either candidate. I think that as an independent, empowered woman the draw for her to come down on this as she did is very strong.
Unfortunately, neither her interests or the interests of the electorate at large are best served by electing a woman simply because she is a woman, just as my interests are not necessarily served by electing a man.
March 5, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because her boneheaded comment about McCain bringing a lifetime of experience to the White House happened too late to have an effect against her.
March 5, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that a reason she didn't not win, not a reason she won? (I'm semi-serious about this)
March 5, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, it's a reason Obama didn't not lose ;)
March 5, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I see what you didn't not mean.
March 5, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what she said but whatever.
March 5, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's immaterial to this discussion, but that is in fact what she said:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Clinton_on_Obama_and_McCain.html
March 5, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an aside, doesn't EVERYONE bring a lifetime of experience to whatever they do? (Or perhaps nobody does?)
March 5, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right. They do. And that is what her ad and speeches are about. 3 AM. Lifetime of experiences. What kind of experiences do you want the person to have had who answers that phone?
Only a sitting President, running for re-election can claim to have actually answered one of those calls. We don't have one of those this time. So we ask: Based on what you know about their lives, who do you trust?
March 5, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That isn't going to go away. As Rachel Maddow said on Countdown the other night - that's what you say when you are making a pitch to be McCain's VP - not when you are running for the Democratic nomination. I think, and hope, that that talking point, which she repeated - it wasn't just a casual remark - was not lost on the superdelegates.
March 5, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that it was so much that Hillary won, her supporters were certainly motivated, but I actually think that it was more of a case that Obama lost.
March 5, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you explain what you mean?
March 5, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've considerd preparing a post on a related subject after all of the election coverage has died down, so I don't want to shoot my wad, but...
He's been basically using the same rhetoric for over a year and it never changes. I know a lot of people who are tired of hearing it, who can essentially recite his speeches before he gives them and because he doesn't delve into specifics, it sort of paints him as a one trick pony.
The '02 speech should definitely be put onto the back burner because that's the past and we all know that he said something, somewhere. Also, by constantly using it as one of the only examples of his "good judgement", it sort of insults all of the others who voted the same as Hillary and the huge majority of regular people who would've voted the same way at the time. I mean, Al Gore gave a similar speech that was televised on all of the cable channels around the same time, but he was roundly criticized as being some kind of nut by the pundits, so why should we care what some nobody from Illinois said and why won't he speak more about the how of getting out?
Once again, the constant references to a speech that nobody heard and how it makes him so much better than everyone else is getting old.
Also, when he actually started getting hard questions from the media, I haven't seen the press conference, but Sam Donaldson called it like a deer in the headlights. He really hasn't stood up to the recent change in the media approach and he comes across as arrogant in his approach and with a lot of his rhetoric.
And finally, though I know that there's only so much he can do about it, but I'm sure a lot of people have been put off by his supporters and the media coverage.
There's been all the calls for Hillary to drop out, even though she has roughly an equal number of votes and both candidates have an almost equal chance of securing the necessary delegates from the upcoming primaries. Heck, when Bill Richardson said something about one or the other stepping aside if their opponent has a significant lead in delegates, everyone took that to be directed toward Hillary, while Obama's delegate lead hasn't been that large and a lot of his delegates have come from small states, whose votes count for just as much or just as little as the larger states.
And in addition to all of the media stuff about "moving the bar" and Hillary should just go, I remember that after the last round of primaries, Hillary spoke from El Paso and there was a young mariachi on the stage. The next day and for some time afterward, the blogosphere had a lot of laughs at the expense of that kid. They thought they were laughing at Hillary, but I'm sure some of the insulting behavior trickled back to some of the Hispanics in Texas.
I could go on, but the short version is along the same lines as what I said in response to M.J. Rosenberg; To a large extent, Obama has failed to widen his base.
March 5, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's because Obama is a secret Muslim and now everyone knows it.
March 5, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Without a doubt Hillary won because she finally turned ugly, nasty and negative and that resonated with low information voters and bigots.
The 3 AM ad, the business with Canada and NAFTA, which may have been stirred up behind the scenes in concert with a conservative Canadian Government, saying such things as that even McCain was better suited to lead the nation than Obama, playing the race card in a retarded state like Ohio (and before you start calling me names, my son lived there for a few years and when I visited I was always struck by how much Southern Ohio was like the South, not the Midwest, deeply conservative and ill-informed) bringing up Rezko again, Saying Obama was not "to my knowledge" a Muslim, etc. Add to that Obama's taking the high road and not really effectively countering her dirt.
Unfortunately, or perhaps in the long term, wisely, Obama did not sling enough mud back at her. For every mention of Rezko he could have said Uzbekistan, Clinton Library, Norman Hsu, Webb Hubbell, and on and on and on and on. With her years of "experience," Clinton is so much dirtier than Obama could ever hope to be and everyone knows this. There was also a lot of hay to make about the experience meme, since a very good case could be made that Hillary's experience was largely negative. Voting for the war, voting for Kyl-Lieberman, handling health care reform so poorly that it got put off for 15 years, (thanks for that.) If Obama wanted to, he could paint Hillary as the poster child for everything that went wrong the last 15 years. Lobbyist money, corruption, lying, disastrous wars and a bankrupting foreign policy, undue influence of corporations and special interests, etc. But he didn't. Or at least, not enough.
Hillary's managed to win these races without moving the delegate meter all that much, but in the process has done a lot of damage to whomever the nominee will actually be - even if it's herself. It was a very selfish, win at any cost, party be damned, mean spirited strategy and it worked in the short term.
I, for one, have lost a tremendous amount of the respect that I had for Hillary, and I'm not happy about it. It might make me very reluctant to vote for her in November, but I'm assuming that I won't be faced with that choice.
March 5, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this last paragraph is key. I certainly relate to these sentiments. For me, Hillary Clinton crossed a line when she suggested that McCain would be a better president than Obama. Intra-party battles are fine, because the fight is all in the family. But going beyond that -- betraying the family in public -- is beyond the pale.
March 5, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, then, yet another Obama-bot weighs in with the genius observation that Clinton appeals to "low information voters and bigots."
Or, maybe it's Obama that primarily appeals to "low information voters and bigots" who don't want a woman in the White House unless she's under the President (literally).
Maybe ... just maybe ... your collective arrogance and snide attitude toward voters who choose the Other Candidate has "resonated" sufficiently to produce a kind of harmonic effect among the opposition, resulting in a power overload and the Obama coil fried. Result: you just got your ass royally thumped by Grandma Spankenheimer. Picture yourself as one of the walkon bad guys in a Jean Claude Van Dammit movie.
Honestly, I don't know where you lot came from. I hope you're returning soon.
Thanks.
mp
March 5, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the bloom is off the rose.
March 5, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
March 5, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Because the bloom is off the rose."
Yep.
March 5, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the thorns are still on the stem. Ouch.
March 5, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
That may well be the case Ellen! It may also account for the feverish way in which the Obama camp has been trying to pressure Clinton and the party to end it by having her withdraw. In all the talk last night I only heard discussion of him having more delegates, never that he has a scenario under which he has enough elected delegates to actually be nominated.
March 5, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form.
Albert Einstein
March 6, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama missed his calling: he should have been an actor. McLaughling group ran a synchronized clip of Patrick Deval and Obama: same language, same gestures. Much more effective when Obama did it than when Deval did it but it sure shot holes in Obama's image of authenticity and sincerity.
When Obama has to think on his feet as in the debates he doesn't do very well. He needs a script.
I think that is why the 3 a.m. ad resonated so well for Clinton.
March 7, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's because Obama is a secret Muslim and now everyone knows it.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? And who really gives a crap if he is?
I guess I just don't understand *why* a person's religion is such a big deal when there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. I mean, God Forbid we ever elect someone President who isn't a Christian. Whatever happened to freedom of religion?
Plus, I just don't get where this Muslim thing comes from with Obama. Are people just assuming it because of his name? If so, that is about the dumbest thing ever.
March 5, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was said sarcastically.
Lighten up.
March 5, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
March 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can now run against the two-headed dinosaur of Hillary and McCain. She's opened herself up for examination by going so negative. I can't wait to have a look at her tax returns and info about Bill's library. Oh, and exactly what are the tough decisions she's been making at 3:00 am? She's got a paper thin, Senator pothole record and little more. THIS is the fun part.
March 5, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not exactly sure how or why it happened, but I do know the results, and I think Alexander Cockburn put it best:
"The Clintons have never confused their own political fortunes with those of the Democratic Party. In 1996 and 1998 Bill Clinton refused to release campaign surpluses from his own war chest to help elect Democrats to the House and the Senate. Obama's campaign has most certainly rallied blacks and the young to the Democratic Party. These new recruits will surely melt away as they see the party machine grind the politics of hope in the dirt.
McCain couldn't have hoped for a better day."
March 5, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blacks as new recruits to the Dem Party? I thought they were part of our base. Rally. Black turnout in Texas was same as 2004. Hispanic? Way up.
March 5, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama chose to run it was clear that one way he could win -- and possibly the only way -- was to peel away significant portions of the black support the Clintons had earned. A lot depended on how he did this because there was always the possibility that Clinton would win and would need black enthusiasm in the fall. Obama and his campaign chose to make false claims of racism against the Clintons. Obama has always put his own political future above all else.
March 7, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
One could argue that Ohio and Texas both have larger percentages of folks without college or advanced degrees, add to that the fact that for 20% of Democratic voting Ohioans race was a factor...her negative ads played well with these constituencies.
March 5, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
We normally have a nominee at this point, but I think what we're seeing is November-style coverage of a race that's not a November race. Momentum is of course important, but the winner-take-all style reporting on the majority vote in a state is misplaced. Whether or not "Clinton wins Ohio" is no more material than whether or not "Obama wins Wisconsin" -- it's all about margins and delegate math, unless (as I fear the Clinton campaign may) there is a concerted attempt to argue that momentum and "big states" should trump delegate majority.
In short, essentially nothing happened. Hillary may have picked up a delegate, she may have lost a delegate.
(Full disclosure -- I am a mathematician).
March 5, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truthfully,
Nothing. The delegate count has not even been altered either way.
Let's keeping our head on the ball people. Nothing happened.
150-162 delegates ahead. Still.
March 5, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Nothing happened."
Obama lost.
March 5, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her NAFTA demogoguery, her surrogates harping on Rezko, dumbing down national security, trying to pile on with Russert's idiocy about Farrakhan. She decided to get ugly.
I hope her supporers won't start getting all whiny now if the "negative coverage" shifts from stories about her campaign to stories about her and her husband's own ethical problems. She set the tone. She can't complain now if Obama comes back at her in kind.
March 5, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
She will, though. Count on it.
If hypocrisy were a felony, Wolfson et al would be in jail.
March 5, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's biggest mistake was believing his own press and acting like the presumptive nominee. Dismissing Clinton out of hand was dumb, dumb, dumb.
His second biggest mistake was not pressing Clinton on her tax returns. Bill Clinton's financial affairs are a legitimate campaign issue and should be addressed before the convention. No October suprises, please!
March 5, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rush Limbaugh. Remember Howard Stern and Sunjia?
March 5, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, the Democrats are about to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory.
March 5, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about? She lost.
She was supposed to win big if she had any chance to retake a delegate lead down the stretch. Ohio's delegate lead will be canceled by the net gain Obama gets in Texas. The primaries look like a draw and it looks like a more substantial win for Obama in the caucuses, enough to cancel out Ohio.
To catch up in pledged delegates Clinton needs to not just win Pennsylvania, but Mississippi and North Carolina by 75% margins.
If you are playing the big state game, then fine. But this is not a general. The big state strategy that works in an electoral college based winner take all model does not work in a nomination.
Wyoming counts, Mississippi counts, North Carolina counts.
If you consider this like the media does, entertainment that gets eyeballs, then there still is a race. In reality, it is largely over.
Hillary Clinton made it clear this morning, she is now running for the Vice Presidency with the deciders being the super delegates.
March 5, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
mjshep, I totally agree with your analysis. I've always been reluctant but willing to support Hillary - reluctant because of her war vote and her general pandering (flag amendment, Kyl-Lieberman). But I've always said, "but in the end, I'll work my butt off for her". Actually, now, no. I'll still hold my nose and vote for her, but when I got her triumphant email this morning, I nearly threw up, and quickly sent a donation to the Obama campaign. Her tactics have been repulsive, and I'm grateful that Obama hasn't sunk that low, even though he's going to be urged to do so in order to show that he's "tough". In my mind "tough" isn't dishonest and sleazy. It's one thing to go after dishonest and sleazy Republicans in the general election; it's another to go after someone who you might have to support. I'm appalled, and depressed.
March 5, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Thanks. I sent money when I got up this morning.
I think the contrast between the campaigns has never been more obvious. The last thing we need is another administration that thinks like a cornered rat and channels Karl Rove.
I think, and hope, that Obama will continue to do exactly what he has been doing. At some point, the superdelegates have to notice that the country wants to try government by people who think like civilized adults.
March 5, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two recommended reader threads are devoted to whether the Clinton campaign "darkened" Obamas skin color.
Talk about sleaze.
You're soaking in it.
March 5, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I always agree with someone who agrees with me.
March 5, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How's this for pandering and judgment?
Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. --U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is considered a rising star in the party, was the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner.
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
Some at Thursday's dinner said that while they were pleased with Lieberman's success in bringing Obama to Connecticut, they still consider Lieberman uncomfortably tolerant of the Bush administration.
Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the "elephant in the room" but praising Lieberman's intellect, character and qualifications.
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
March 7, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
He was joking...
March 5, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check it out. Even Andrew can't get his reply to thread.
BTW, I dance on the virtual grave of the rating system, but mourn the loss of private messaging.
March 6, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I worked the polls in a Dayton, Ohio suburb. Of those at my polling station--there were a total of 3 African Americans out of approximately 400 voters--and that probably reflects the racial mix of the area--white, upper middle class, average age probably 45-55. The interesting thing was the number of voters (approximately 10%) who had voted Republican in the last election that switched parties to vote for the Democratic Party in this one. I overheard one Republican say that he should switch parties to vote for Hillary Clinton--because "we can beat her". There were a minority of Dem's switching to Rep's--and the ones that I observed (I had to process their paperwork for party switchers) were middle class 40-50 year old women.
The County went for Obama 54% to 45%. Super Delegate Dayton Mayor McLin said that she would vote how Dayton voted--so I guess that means Obama.
March 5, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that bad weather in Northeast Ohio might have played a significant roll in making Clinton's win in that state larger than it otherwise would have been.
March 5, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw today that Obama doesn't think he needs to change his approach at all. This worries me. He may see this as just that Hillary won a few states well suited for her and that his march to the nomination continues unabated. But she opened some real cracks in his candidacy. The bottom line of all her attacks was whether he's both prepared enough and tough enough to be president. He needs to fight back hard. It's not old politics to fight fire with fire. It's reality. Take off the gloves, Obama, or the party may actually decide she's better able to win in November.
March 5, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the gloves may actually be coming off.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8843.html ``We have not hesitated to draw distinctions between the candidates and we'll continue to do that," said Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. "If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we'll join that debate. We'll do it on our terms and in our own way, but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I've said before, I don't know why they'd want to go there, but I guess that's where they'll take the race.''
I guess we'll soon see how low he'll go.
March 5, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The end result will be "they are BOTH slinging mud" and lost will be ethical decent Obama and the rovian attack dog that is Hillary.
That is the biggest problem I have with this whole thing. Obama wanted to run an honest ethical campaign. We are democrats. We are supposed to draw distinctions in policy between each other, but realize they both need each others supporters for the GE. Obama understands this and has run a decent ethical campaign.
Hillary is a RINO when it comes to campaigning. The republicans are not our opponents in this elections cycle. Everyone is to her - it is a big right wing, left wing, media, newspaper, blog, sexist, racist conspiracy against her, she complains. She has torn down what little hope we had for coming out of the darkness of the last 8 years. I am ashamed to see her part of the democratic party let alone the presidential nominee. She is anthemic to everything we have stood against for the last 8 years.
I want Obama to win. I want the fundamentally new direction he will take us in. If he gets down in the mud with her it will be heartbreaking. I hope he can pull it off.
March 5, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is my take: First of all, although I totally think it is ridiculous, Obama being a "Muslim" is a very real threat where I live in CA, most republican county in the state. People believe this, and no matter how many times Obama refutes it, it has stuck. Second, the hand over the national anthem, has somehow mushroomed into he will not say the pledge, another ridiculous yet damning rumor. Thirdly, my mother, 82, is convinced he will be killed during his presidency, and no matter how many times I point out that Ronald Reagan was almost killed, somehow this is a huge concern of hers, and yes, she watches Fox. Finally, and this, in my opinion is the biggest reason, the media turned on Obama big time, between Renko, NAFTA (which they should have turned right back on HRC for) and stupid comments like Clinton can win the big states of CA and NY, which is ridiculous, as these "BIG" states will totally support Obama over McCain. Footnote: Her whining about Florida and Michigan resonates also, as most people have NO clue what really happened there, they do not have the time to be well informed.
If you saw 60 minutes in Ohio, a man didn't know if he would vote for Obama or HRC, but he "heard" that Obama didn't know the words to the national anthem. Really, who does, I know the first verse, let's get serious. But this stupid stuff, untrue, is believed. I personally want one of them out soon, McCain going to keep hitting on Obama and HRC is too, I support Obama, and since the delegates cannot be obtained by either party at this point, I think Howard Dean should step in soon and push for Obama, as he has the most.
March 5, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The media. Obama may have bought plenty of ads but he could not counter the barrage of negative media ads.
Hillary's free press included:
Flattering BS on SNL for herself
Unflattering BS on SNL for Obama
Negative messages in the majority of Obama stories
Rezko focus
Nafta-Canuk story
Rush Limbaugh telling repubs to vote for Hillary
Rush Limbaugh laughing with a caller about Obama resembling Curious George
HRC saying Obama wasn't a muslim as far she knew
She won by playing hardball. One way or another she will die for it. Either as a nominee or as a candidate. I contemplated voting for her for awhile but now I could never do it. I wouldn't vote for Obama if she was the VP candidate at this point. Same goes for her with Obama as VP. I'd vote for Nader and get a student visa ready.
TM
March 5, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at the Texas totals for the primary vote and the caucuses. That's what a stolen election looks like.
Then take a look at how Texas counts the votes:
http://verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6529
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Texas_Voting_Machines_Rig_an_Election_with_1_Password
Texas Governor Rick Perry is a Republican. Wonder who he gets along with. Could it be, oh, say Charlie Black and, you know, Mark Penn?
In Ohio they dumped their new voting machines not long ago because they failed all testing. They went to paper ballots. Silly me, I thought that might be a good thing until I went to BlackBoxVoting.org, and learned that they would not be counting at the precinct levels, but trucking the ballots to a central location. Mayday! Mayday! So control remains entirely in the hands of the board of elections, currently controlled by Governor Strickland, one of the more rabid and vociferous of the Hillary supporters. There are any number of ways to steal an election, but the first thing to look at is who's in charge of the board of elections and how bad they want to win.
I'm not saying Ohio was tampered with, far be it from me to even imply such a thing. And Texas? Do you think Rick Perry would stoop so low? And even if he did, do you think the Republicans would condone it?
March 5, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the relative demographics predictors of the race have become pretty much settled, and the demographics lined up for Sen. Clinton yesterday. From Openleft's great compiling of exit poll data:
Gender And % H O
White Women 35% 58% 37%
White Men 27% 44% 49%
Black Women 12% 17% 81%
Black Men 8% 12% 86%
Latino Women 7% 69% 30%
Latino Men 6% 58% 40%
I can't find how Ohio broke down in terms of demographics, but I bet those numbers take care of much of the explanation, and will explain most of the rest of the way states break down the rest of the way.
March 5, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
So is it Okay to play hardball? Clinton is just throwing the kitchen sink. “I have to take him at his word that he’s not a Muslim,” as if there were something wrong with being a Muslim. Wink, wink: Muslim is code for being what? Like maybe being, you know, a terrorist. That’s the innuendo. And all this playing right into the Us versus Them hysteria. Then there are the unfounded claims around Obama’s house deal. The attacks on his patriotism over whether he wears a pin or where he places his hand during the anthem. His rhetoric being elegant but hollow – like all those ministers who have that special color – wink, wink. You know, black. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran-McCain and Clinton are “experienced.” Also, we’re not wink, wink – you know, that special color. Black. And the NAFTA/Canada scandal. Is it likely that Obama would have said something that two-faced, being the thoughtful man he is, just before Ohio? Not very likely. And all this like an unexpected meteor shower, all happening miraculously on the eve of Ohio and Texas. What an extraordinary coincidence. And the sudden not so subtle shift in the Main Stream Media: charming pictures of Clinton. Her remarkable appearances on Saturday Night Live and Jon Stewart – all part of the media, I mean, meteor shower, all miraculously on the eve of Ohio and Texas. All joining together, turning like birds wheeling in flight, to keep the man of color from taking the prize.
March 5, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well, people have been warning you that this would happen.
The thing is, this is just the beginning, and rather than claiming how "unfair" it all is (hum, sounds familiar) or blaming it all on the MSM, this is where you need to step it up a notch. Rather than just being angry, get smart. Find out the truth, use it to counter the spin, come up with well reasoned arguments, rather than sophomoric bile. Admit the truth in the allegations, but dismiss the actual spin where it exists.
This is the hard part. Can you go the distance? Can Obama?
I think he can, but it won't happen without some real support. It's easy to back a candidate when everything is going their way, not so easy when the going gets rough.
Hang in there.
March 5, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20commence.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=Milestones%3A+Hillary+Clinton&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSsgwajStCo&feature=related
I wont even say anything. Make you own conclusion.
March 5, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I have a LOT of acquaintances in Ohio, but so far, the only one who writes about voting for Hilary was a lifelong Republican:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.slack/tree/browse_frm/thread/d8eaa94c62fcc34c/a59dfb9e2cbcadf0?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.slack%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fd8eaa94c62fcc34c%2Fa59dfb9e2cbcadf0%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_a59dfb9e2cbcadf0
March 5, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh he'll change. The tax return issue is going to show up.
March 5, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
(PS, for any who follow my link: His atrocious spelling is mostly intentional. That's alt.slack for you.)
March 5, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot to mention the STUPID FLAG LAPELS. There is NO way I am sticking a hole in my expensive suit, yet I hear this over and over. I am starting to really dislike even seeing a flag, and that is so sad.
Oh, and Michelle Obama, can we just keep taking swipes at her, because the NY Post is doing to again today.
March 5, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bottom line is this: The entire American media, including the so-called "New Media", have written Clinton off. She won because the American people (you know, the voters?) have not written her off.
So-called "conventional wisdom" is neither conventional nor wisdom. It is just a way for self-important pundits and bloggers to feel good about themselves. Clinton hasn't defied "conventional wisdom". She has simply shown that all the media blow-hards don't have a clue, and that all their narrow little biases aren't worth a thing.
March 5, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
ever hear of sarcasm?
March 5, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sarcasm? What's that?
March 5, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the complexities of this primary season is the fact that for the last couple of weeks McCain has been campaigning against Obama as if he will be the nominee, so Ohio and Texas voters have been able to get a review of the general election. If there is any "buyer's remorse" at work, I think it was fed by the Obama-McCain back-and-forth on Iraq. Obama's citing his stance against the war from the beginning is attractive to Democratic voters chosing between him and Clinton, but I just don't think it plays as well against McCain.
Add to that the increasing attention to the Rezko story, and the unanswered question: Why did Rezko buy a side yard for Obama's house? Obama has not come up with an explanation for that yet.
In short, I think Obama's electablility in November has been put into question and voters yesterday responded.
March 5, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's hard for me to believe that nobody here has written that perhaps she is a good politician and knows what she has to do to win.
That's why I like her in November. She knows America and knows what she has to do to win.
Get it... She knows!!!!
so does McCain, unfortunately. I heard his speech last night and he's getting old enough to have that Reagany tone to it. And he knows it.
I would think that after Kerry people here might realize that nice guys finish last in this stuff.
March 5, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speed kills. Bu tin this case it was how fast can you out yell or out whisper. In both states there were back and forth kitchen sink slams Obama did well to dodge it all and respond. The problem is the media, not in the usual evil media, but in saturation or depth penetration of call and responses.
Bad news and dirty politics saturated and penetrated quickly throughout the media such as local news, but the parry and response had a lag.
Now couple that with who the lag and penetration impacts, the uneducated poor, look at Ms Clintons numbers in those demos and it accounts for nearly 65% of the number she "won" the popular vote by in both states.
Now the other two anomalies %5 for the rush impact, most easily demonstrated in the ohio race, look at Clermont county where the amount of Democratic ballots cast for the primary was double the number of registered Democrats.
Cleremont is a bastion of Republicanism in previous cycles and those republicans in that one county broke for Ms Clinton huge and accounted for nearly 10% of the over all popular vote laed she took in ohio.
And lastly you can guarantee there was a 15 - 20 % surge in her base for her last chance stand as well as a slight anti Obama sentiment coupling that movement.
So all in all:
65% uneducated poor who heard the slams but did not get penetration on the Obama responses
5% percent rush effect.
15-20% Clinton Base/Anti Obama surge brings you pretty close to 90% of the couple hundred thousand popular votes.
Kind of a squeeker to hang your hat on if you ask me.
March 5, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the basic nutshell reason is that the Democratic voting public is not quite ready to assign Barack Obama to the job.
They like Sen. Obama, but they don't KNOW him well enough (perhaps the opposite of Sen. Clinton's situation?). That leaves them available to court some suspicions about him, even if they don't entirely accept them. They want to see more of a contest over a longer time-frame.
I think that explains more than NAFTA, more than Resko, more than negative campaigning, more than anything either candidate may or may not have done.
March 5, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with every single "reason" mentioned in these posts; all were factors, but STILL Obama is holding tough in the delegate race. This convinces me to do everything I possibly can to help him in PA. I am sending a contribution, attending an organizational meeting for supporters tomorrow night in my district, e-mailing friends, and I will do more. Senator Obama has said "we" are the hope he talks about. Are we or not? Let's get to work wherever we are.
March 5, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops...above I ment "preview of the general election", not "review".
March 5, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a number of factors were in play.
First, consider how much ground Obama gained in Ohio in just
2 weeks, gaining 10 percentage points, and even more in Texas.
I think the large blue collar and women vote was hard to overcome in Ohio. Obama needs to concentrate on gaining these votes in a state like Pennsylvania. In Texas, the Hispanic vote played a large role in Clinton's victory there. I think her going negative must have been a factor, but it is something that, to me, makes her unappealing. Unfortunately, I think Obama will need to go negative to have a significant win in Pennsylvania.
CMR
March 5, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The margin here in Ohio surprised me, but I think it was just the economy, really. Some of the statistics I've seen since moving here last summer about what's happened under Bush are simply amazing -- 80% of manufacturing jobs disappearing in some places. You read stories in the business section about this or that company's strategy to survive, and then find out they had 3,000 employees 10 years ago and now have 150. So I think a lot of people -- especially the less-educated, blue-collar people that tend to be Clinton supporters -- simply associate the Clinton name with the good times of the '90s and voted that way, like it will be that simple.
For me, I can deal with Hillary okay, it's those advisers of hers -- Penn, Wolfson, Ickes, McAuliffe -- that make me want to vomit. But it looks like six more weeks of nausea now.
And to msn -- as Presidents Gore and Kerry can tell you, the big state strategy doesn't work in generals either.
March 5, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on, re: Gore and Kerry.
March 5, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The big state strategy will eventually doom the party because it decimates red state Democrats.
March 5, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gregg,
Instead of placing the sole blame on the heads of the politicians, why not direct some of the outrage at the the owner's of all these businesses that decide to pull up the stakes and leave places like Ohio? Sure, the government should probably try to step in at some point and do something, but ultimately it is the businessmen who are the true enemies here; yet they seem to get a free pass for some reason...
March 5, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg,
I didn't put the blame on anybody. I'm just saying people here are freaked out about what's happened to all their jobs. More than once, I've gone into my local Kroger and EVERY SINGLE checker and bagger was a middle-aged male. That's not normal (although maybe it's the new normal).
March 5, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg,
Well, for one thing, you don't get to vote for your boss. I'm not saying it's a rational way of looking at it. I'm just saying people here are freaked out about what's happened to all their jobs. More than once, I've gone into my local Kroger and EVERY SINGLE checker and bagger was a middle-aged male. That's not normal (although maybe it's the new normal).
March 5, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg,
Well, for one thing, you don't get to vote for your boss. I'm not saying it's a rational way of looking at it. I'm just saying people here are freaked out about what's happened to all their jobs. More than once, I've gone into my local Kroger and EVERY SINGLE checker and bagger was a middle-aged male. That's not normal (although maybe it's the new normal).
March 5, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg,
Well, for one thing, you don't get to vote for your boss. I'm not saying it's a rational way of looking at it. I'm just saying people here are freaked out about what's happened to all their jobs. More than once, I've gone into my local Kroger and EVERY SINGLE checker and bagger was a middle-aged male. That's not normal (although maybe it's the new normal).
March 5, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg,
Well, for one thing, you don't get to vote for your boss. I'm not saying it's a rational way of looking at it. I'm just saying people here are freaked out about what's happened to all their jobs. More than once, I've gone into my local Kroger and EVERY SINGLE checker and bagger was a middle-aged male. That's not normal (although maybe it's the new normal).
March 5, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buyer's remorse, over and over, of course.
It will be true buyer's remorse should HRC run against McCain. People here would vote for Obama, but NO way would she get those votes, unfortunately, the woman thing is huge.
I loathe HRC at this point, and I liked her A LOT. Her destruction to the party with the McCain is more experienced comment did it for me. Also, she is no more experienced than Obama is; seriously, she just married higher up in the B.S. chain.
March 5, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just think Hillary's team does a much better job of "whisper campaign" politics, and it pays off. For the last week and a half, she's been hitting him hard on matters big and small, with virtually no return fire. Her campaign has also done a nice job "raising questions" about him for which he has mostly tried to stay above the fray.
Unfortunately, if he really believes in what he is trying to sell, he needs to get his hands a little dirty and hit back -- hard. Right now, she's bullying him and making him look weak. People respond to strength. If he can't muster it, then he won't be the nominee OR the president. Instead of focusing on John McCain right now, he needs to wake up and realize his primary fight isn't over yet.
March 5, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
NAFTA in Ohio.
Limbaugh inspired Republican cross-overs in Texas.
Catholic mistrust of Obama in RI?
March 5, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
All of these, plus some gender v. race schizophrenia, and what someone said above, that Obama's been making the same speech/points for too long, and he hasn't expanded his base much since, say, Wisconsin.
It's complicated....
March 5, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy:
1. Rural Texans have that old Confederate spirit in them and they will simply not vote for a black man. Period.
2. Blue collar Ohioans just aren't very smart. "They're taking our jobs!" is their rallying cry, despite the fact that "they" often comes to signify anyone residing outside of the state of Ohio.
Honestly, I feel bad for anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton. It's just illogical, that's all there is too it.
March 5, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can think of several factors:
1) Clinton had very big leads in both states before the campaigning began. Perhaps owing to the size of the states those leads were harder to overcome than they had been. While I had hoped a typical Obama surge would take him to victories, it really is amazing how much ground he has been able to make up in these primaries.
2) Both campaigns went negative, Clinton's campaign overtly so and Obama's more subtly so. People expect this of the political "establishment" but it's more unbecoming when it comes from the new politics candidate. Of course, if Obama doesn't fight back he's painted as a weakling. It's a difficult spot.
3) Obama became the frontrunner and for that reason (as well as Clinton's press-bias campaign) came under greater media scrutiny. That's not a bad thing. The question now is whether the press will keep up the pressure on Obama nnd give Clinton a pass from here on out. Interestingly, though many viewers groaned under the weight of "change you can Xerox" and "is Barack comfy", these became theoft-repeated big lie.
4) I think Obama is running on the same theme that a third party would use if there were a viable third party. Frankly, it's what attracts me to Obama and if he fails in this effort to transform the Democratic Party I will have to find a new political home. Hillary successfully got out the same core Democratic base that has had trouble winning elections lately. Good for her. But it seems to me that a Hillary presidency will not quell the groundswell of desire for meaningful change (Obama's election might not do it either, but people at least hope it can have some impact). A third party may finally become practicable over the next several years.
We'll see. Whatever happens (unless a brokered convention brings us a unity candidate) I think enough damage is being done and Democrats are polarized enough that McCain is very likely to win in November. We can probably survive four years of McCain, but there will be lasting damage in our judicial appointments.
There's more to this, of course. Josh is right, there are a lot of factors that influenced this outcome.
Gore/Feingold '08.
March 5, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
My take is that there was enough negative stuff swirling around Barack the last week and he is still enough of an unknown quantity that Dems decided that they wanted to have a better look at him.
It is really what I think happened in NH and what I think happened in TX/OH. Both were situations where a win for Obama would effectively put Clinton out of the race but wouldn't really harm Obama's chances but would force him to show his mettle to win.
When the dust settles, this will be like Super Tues. Everyone was all hyped about her CA win but when everything was said and done, most people who are paying attention realized that she really needed to win bigger to be competitive. Same thing will happen here.
March 5, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I got the feeling from the media coverage -- and perhaps it is the pendulum swinging the other way/bloom off the rose-- that Obama was flatfooted and, nasty as it was the Clinton attacks fueling innuendo, etc. his message was not getting through and he was playing defense. his nafta thing sounded weasley.
how to be aggressive without being dirty? how to rise above? will be essential when facing Repub. attack machine which knows no scruples.
and the untold story, still, is where is all that campaign money being spent: on TV ads. that 'willie horton/swiftboat' meme that tips things in the minds of lesser informed voters. it's obscene. we need to pull the plug on the white noise machine. broadcasters get their bandwidth in return for public service -- limit advertising accordingly. all though political media consulting firms, left and right, will have to make their money some other less manipulative way.
but let's not forget some people, women of a certain age, who see Hillary as their champion --
March 5, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was the Saturday Night Live sketch and the whining at the press coverage.
March 5, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. This race got turned around in favor of Obama just before SC, after HRC had won NH and NV, and the media went sharply and relentlessly negative on her (race-baiting, Bill's meddling, etc...), while gushing about how wonderful Obama was. This got so way over the top that I quit watching the news or posting in any thread.
So why did Hillary win? Simple: The media, for the first time ever, went sharply negative on Obama. It is the media, and not Hillary, that hyped NAFTA-gate, Rezko-gate, experience-gate, muslim-gate...
Hillary's only path to the nomination is for the media to stay negative on Obama and raise doubts about him that they should have raised a long time ago. For example, look at the states that he's won. Shouldn't the Dem superdelegates worry that he won only small states and mostly where McCain would be strong, and failed to win any big states (a drought that has continued with loss in Texas and OH)?
March 5, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
She won because she's been ahead in both of those states all along. Big whoop.
March 5, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I participated in a small Texas county Dem caucus for Obama last night with Hillary winning the delegate votes.Apparently after talking with some of the caucus goers they were Republicans thrilled to vote for Hillary laughing about it and stating all their friends were doing the same.Legal yes,shameful yes.My wife's parents have done the same over 50 years to skew the results as big Republicans.It turned out that our retired neighbors showed up whom I figured were Republicans to vote for Obama and surprised me.When I walked up to them I stated laughingly the Republican caucus was in a small community nearby and they said they had voted Republican all their life but were ashamed of what Bush has done to our country putting their party first at all costs and the country second.They did say that if Hillary wins the nomination or is the veep pick they would vote for McCain.That is how much she is disliked among people like them.I think Hillary could well lose the election if she is our candidate although I would support whoever wins the nomination.
March 5, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
His entire campaign is based on asking people to take a chance. That worked early on. The closer people come to the chance that their vote might actually put him over, the more they back off from taking the chance. We saw that in NH and again last night. When voters get the message that this is it -- vote for Obama and you are going to get him as your President, they shy away. The next time we'll see that situation will be in Pennsylvania. More on the line than ever. Expect her to run stronger than ever.
March 5, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is what is happening.
The voters are slowly figuring out that Obama's bubble is leaking hot air.
March 5, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Consider the possibility that Sen. Obama has never been fully vetted (his 2004 campaign was a cakewalk), and when there is even the hint of scrutiny (Rezko, wayward NAFTA comments by senior adviser, experience, etc), people feel that they don't know him and are not pacified by his rhetoric.
Sen. Obama's tactical decision has been to stay above the fray, try to appear statesmanlike, avoid detailed policy positions, and ride a wave of media adulation. That strategy worked for awhile but the party is over.
Its really humorous to hear people on this site talk about Hillary going "negative" or "ugly" or pursuing a "kitchen sink" strategy. If anything, she has been overly careful in her criticisms (no doubt driven by the concern that harsh attacks might backfire, especially with a media that is overly protective of Obama). So, in a brilliant stroke, she pushed a third party (mainstream media) into doing their job vis-a-vis Obama, and the media has begun to ask questions that should have been asked before Iowa. The results are beginning to emerge -- Obama has, at best, peaked (at worst, he is declining with core constituencies of the Democratic party, Hispanics, Catholics, older women). Hillary also brilliantly used the SNL skit to her advantage, which tended to push the media into doing their job. The SNL skit was so effective because it was so true (and so funny); reminds me of the glory days of SNL in the late 1970s. And when the media asks the questions (which is fair), the public gets more information (which is good), and Hillary avoids the negative backlash.
March 5, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Inexplicable but apparently true, the Repubs have so successfully embedded the fear factor in the American psyche that any candidate who doesn't use it in a march to the next WH is probably a fool.
Hillary has no problem capitalizing on it. She began establishing her hawk credentials the day she became a senator and she continues to tout them today. Is fear legitimate? No, but it works and whatever works Hillary will use.
I don't think Obama can comfortably prostitute himself - at least not as well as Hillary - so I'll be surprised if he goes the hawk route.
March 5, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
NAFTA in OH. The campaign timed the attacks perfectly, so that Obama had no time to respond within the news cycle. This is one-shot, and a sign of desperation, though. Because NAFTA is, um, a Clinton achievement arrived at by working across the aisle in a spirit of bipartisanship. She can't attack NAFTA and take credit for "experience" gained during her years as first lady.
There are plenty of responses. Substantive ones regarding revisiting trade policy, and reviving the DOHA round through actual international engagement, rather than petulant demands that American businesses be subsidized as a condition of US participation. Nasty ones like "NAFTA is one of the crowning achievements of the Clinton administration. The administration's promises, both to MExico and the US have not been fulfilled. Elements of the treaty need to be revisited. That's all we're saying, and we can do this without the baggage of having been the original American proponent."
No clue in TX. Hispanics obviously broke huge for her. And she had great over 50 female turnout, from what I can tell.
But I think in general she got sympathy vote, for being the underdog and for being savaged in the media. Again, this is a desperation tactic, because it flies in the face of the "I'm tough and strong and nobody can intimidate me." message. That the claim had the virtue of being true also helped her.
PA is gonna be nasty. Demogoguing NAFTA plays very well there. We'll see a number of dishonest charges on both sides, and some serious pandering. IMO.
March 5, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Despite the "comeback" I still think Obama will get the nomination. Niether will have a majority of pledged delegates, and so the superdelegates will decide it. I don't see them voting against Obama if he has a delegate lead of over 100, as it seems he will have even if Clinton stays in until June.
Hard to say for sure though - how many of those superdelegates have the Clintons campaigned for over the years? Does that earn them some loyalty, or the benefit of the doubt in a close call?
In the end I think it will all come down to which one proves themselves a better competitor against McCain in the next few months. That is something that could and should change a superdelegate's mind. I hope Clinton and Obama both play on that field, and may the best McCain-beater win.
March 5, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I want to offer an unusual sort of big picture 'reason' [and I mean a really cosmic big picture reason] for 'why she won'.
Just as most politicians stress that we need an educated population to compete in the world [the supposed rationale behind No Child Left Behind], we also need an awake and aware citizenry to keep America's democracy healthy and vibrant.
The unhealthy trends regarding democracy in the past few decades have allowed power to be consolidated into the control of the few, and means that government actions side with those few against the interests of the many. That consolidated power of the status quo is maintained by the effective use of divisiveness as a tool in political contests. The hooking of emotion through smear tactics works best with an uniformed electorate.
We have all just witnessed the use of those tactics in the past couple of weeks by the Clinton smear machine intentionally working on the voters least likely to be informed, awake, and aware of such manipulations. That it worked gives us an indication of exactly where we are in terms of an underlying issue facing the future of democracy.
If this were about a stubborn unsolved physiological problem, I would say that the underlying disease just erupted into a manifest symptom that can lead to a solid diagnosis and more appropriate treatment. We the people are the 'body' suffering from an underlying 'disease' in our democracy and politics.
Whether we can pay attention to the eruption of slime and its effects, and whether Obama can continue to provide a clear contrast of healthier politics and lift awareness remains to be seen. But, in my cosmic view, that contrast is the real value of this election season and Obama's role. Hillary's win and the basis for it are invaluable educational lessons to take in we citizens work to re-vitalize our democracy. So, thanks, Hillary for helping out and providing such stark contrasts.
March 5, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Letter to Obama,
First, bear with the brute fact that we lost because you Obama did not work enough in the last 4-5 days. For instance, while you had time, you did not visit the entire West Texas, let alone college towns like Lubbock or College Station where Texas Tech and Texas A & M are located (together, they have more than 60, 000 students eligible to vote). In Ohio, in the final day, you did two rallies in one day, and HRC did 6-7. This ws a consistent pattern in the final week leading to Super Tuesday II. We simply got out-performed by HRC and her surrogates even though our volunteers were more committed, smarter, and stronger in the field. A lot of us are not happy with your performance. Obama, you need to work more, going to every place possible: about 8-10 rallies a day if you are in the same state, regardless of the size of the rallies. You will also need to inform local campaign offices in advance of your schedules.
Secondly, you have to act decisively, fire people like Chicago economics professor right away if they are found to be detrimental to your campaign.
Thirdly and most important of all, you have to start punching the opponent hard and mercilessly, to knock her/him out of the ring because the campaign staffers and volunteers are being burnt out as we cannot go on forever. Yes, we are young but we are not used to this prolonged primary season. A lot of us are first timers, and we tend to lose patience with the thoughts that we have to go on forever. Th point is you cannot play defensive at any moment from now on. You have to play offensive every moment to tear her/him apart, blow after blow. Then only, we have a chance to win the nomination and win the election. (only at times, you may mix semi-defense with full throttle offense, but never defense alone). If you continue to play defensive and act Mr. Nice Guy, forget it and consider going back to teaching law. You need to show that you are tough enough to take both man and woman: like you used say, "I am skinny but I am tough," but now it is time to take off your gloves and show how tough you are. Forget about not bruising the party a bit, because the party will heal once you start getting hits from Republicans. If your opponent throws at you kitchen sink, you need to throw at her/him the whole gutter. Any less than that is not acceptable unless you wish to be eliminated in the next round. Remind yourself that you are doing politics, not writing a poem. You cannot disappoint us any more by playing a chicken. We are involved in this, and we have higher stakes in it than you do.
March 5, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
From my humble perch on this computer, I agree whole heartedly, that the advisor should have been released from the campaign and OBH state unequivocally that NAFTA will be negotiated to make it a better deal for all Americans.
March 5, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
A wonderful post. And the point now may be that he can't "go negative." His disadvantage is that he has always had a choice she doesn't have, i.e., taking the VP slot. As long as she keeps him thinking that he has a chance at that, and as long as he is willing to settle for it, she has him in her pocket. He has to "fight back" or "go negative" in a way that lets him campaign as her VP in the Fall. He has to let her keep the option of picking him for VP.
March 5, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Ohio, just outside Cincinnati. My wife and I originally supported Senator Obama (we have two girls the same age as his daughters, and genuinely like his gentle approach). However, in recent weeks we became disenchanted with his vague, general comments and more interested in specific actions plans to solve our tough problems. Here in the heartland we see what is happening to our beloved country, and know how tough it will be to change our direction.
During the debates, which we watched closely, my wife and I noted that Senator Clinton, although not the accomplished speaker that Senator Obama is, was nonetheless very sharp on policy issues. For example, when both were asked about implementing tariffs to protect our businesses, Senator Clinton noted that in the 19th century our country adopted a definite protectionist trade policy. Senator Obama replied that he did "not want to build a moat around the country."
On health care, which is among the three most important issues we face (Iraq, Health Care, Economy), we agree with Senator Clinton: everyone should be covered. Moreover, her approach to No Child Left Behind is very specific and sensible. Finally, I would just add that our governor, Ted Strickland, is very popular among both Democrats and Republicans and he supports Hillary Clinton.
One of the best critiques I read of Senator Obama was written by Matt Gonzales, who had run for mayor of San Francisco. Mr. Gonzalez pointed out that, when examining Senator Obama's voting record, one sees a pattern of a man who will too easily compromise, a man who may not take the tough stand when he has to. Senator Obama campaigned for Senator Lieberman, and refused to have his photo taken with the mayor of San Francisco for fear of the gay marriage issue.
We do not agree with everything Senator Clinton stands for: we protested the then imminent Iraq war in January 2003 in downtown Cincinnati; we do not believe we need to escalate the war in Afghanistan; and we think the Pentagon budget needs to be cut in half to save this country. Nonetheless, we do know that Senator Clinton has fight in her (she was the one who took on Secretary Rumsfeld in a Senate hearing), that she will stand on certain issues and will not shift, and she will begin to restore our lost jobs here in Ohio.
That is why we voted for her.
March 5, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I follow you on the first three paragraphs on your post, but if you think Obama's voting record indicates too much willingness to compromise, how do you deal with Hillary's? What issues has she been way out front on? And also, are you aware that the Clintons also campaigned for Lieberman during the Democratic Senate primary? And that Lamont endorsed Obama?
March 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary did not campaign for Lieberman in the primary. Obama did. Yes, yes, Bill campaigned for Lieberman in the primary, but Hillary campaigned for Lamont in the general. She showed up and campaigned. Obama did not. Thems the facts.
No one cares about Lamont, except maybe us folks from Connecticut who are well aware that Lamont backed Chris Dodd and only backed Obama after Dodd dropped out and backed Obama.
What democrats around the country are likely to remember is that Obama went to Connecticut and campaigned with and for Lieberman in the primary. They might remember that Hillary spoke out against Joe running as a independent against what was then the dem consensus to stay out of it.
This is a loser issue for Obama. I suggest you try another tack.
March 5, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're splitting hairs. Hillary endorsed Lieberman in the primary, and Bill attended a campaign event for him. Obama campaigned for Lieberman in one event, along with Biden and others. After the primary, Hillary attended one fundraiser for Lamont. Obama sent an e-mail supporting Lamont to his Connecticut list. It's bullshit to attack Obama for supporting Lieberman.
March 5, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no I'm not.
It is not splitting hairs to set the record straight. Obama did what he did, and it hurt him. What people will remember is Obama backing Lieberman in the primary. He came all the way from Illinois to do it.
You do not want to bring up Lieberman. It will hurt your candidate far more than it will hurt either Clinton.
March 5, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, he came all the way from Illinois. And Daniel Inouye came all the way from Hawaii!!
I'm not trying to saddle the Clintons with Lieberman; the bullshit here is trying to hang Lieberman on Obama. For anyone except the dismayed former Lamont volunteers/Hillary supporters like you who (unlike Lamont) are looking for scapegoats, there is no distinction to be made between Obama and Clinton re Lieberman/Lamont.
I just want to make sure that folks like WJoeP have the facts.
March 5, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
How silly.
You know what? You don't have an argument, which is why you are reduced to shallow ad hominems. You aren't from Connecticut, you're twisting the obvious, so go ahead and bring up Lamont and Lieberman as much as you like.
Unlike you, I won't be driven to ad hominems or be classless enough to say: "Toldja so."
March 5, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted this above but it is too apposite:
Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. --U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is considered a rising star in the party, was the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner.
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
Some at Thursday's dinner said that while they were pleased with Lieberman's success in bringing Obama to Connecticut, they still consider Lieberman uncomfortably tolerant of the Bush administration.
Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the "elephant in the room" but praising Lieberman's intellect, character and qualifications.
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
By giving Joe Lieberman this resounding sendoff Obama did far more harm to the anti-war cause than he did good by his speech listing prudential reasons against the war. The reasons Obama gave against the war sound very similar to the fixes that McCain suggested for doing the war 'right'.
March 7, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's because Obama is a secret Muslim and now everyone knows it.
So, please explain why it is a bad thing to be a Muslim? Why are you so afraid of the Muslim boogie man?
March 5, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was a joke.
The great thing about the new TPM Cafe is that no one has a sense of humor.
March 5, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Troll.
:P
March 5, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Obama's a .
March 5, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tsk tsk.
Now Ellen, don't go stirring up trouble.
March 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow..., a Muslim AND a Zionist!
"Ken, anachnu yakolim!"
March 6, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing like the taste of crow. For myself, last night was a three-course crow dinner.
The question was, if its not noise, then what is it? The socioeconomics continue to simmer just as they have for the last few years, only more so. The underlying fundamentals are still the same- we're in Iraq, people are anxious over health care, and the economy is tanking. So, my thought is that noise not only mattered, it was decisive. There was enough noise from enough corners that the stink stuck. People are buying a brand when they vote, and he let others brand him. Young, 'radical,' naive, hotshot, Muslim, NAFTA- take your pick. For each demographic that may matter, a custom created smear could be fabricated out of available materials. Which noise mattered most? I challenge the implication that a single discordant tone created last night's outcome. The sum of parts was greater than the whole. OBH's challenge will be to unwind the spin and get his message out about 'principled differences.' Meanwhile, HRC will ask for the kitchen sink back so she can toss it again. I see no quick resolution to the quandary the party faces.
I will share one other personal feeling on last nights results: this does not appear to bode well, at all, for the dems. All the underlying fundamentals are in their favor. The greatest threat are the Democratic nomination rules themselves. I'm at a point where I don't care which one gets the nomination. Either candidate will be better than four more years of republican rule. End it already!
March 5, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best that can be said is HRC received a 30-minute reprieve from the gallows... nothing more, nothing less... she will continue to exact damage against the Democratic Party; but, it seems soberer minds will prevent her from turning Denver into another 1968. When I opend my dictionary this morning to find a defintion for a sore loser, lo and behold, there was a picture of HRC. Her time was in 2004 when she could have beaten GWB handily. But, in 2008, her time has passed. Kinda sad, really. But, that is what happens when you're too calculating by half. RIP,HRC.
March 5, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd really like to know more about this 2004 thing. Was there some kind of draft Hillary movement in 2004? She was what? A first term Senator, ex-First Lady. Kerry and Dean were established Dems. She should have pulled an Edwards? She should have pulled an Obama? Kerry lost to the most impeachable President in the history of the United States. How could Hillary have turned that around in 2004?
March 5, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did Hillary do well last night?
The same reason she will eventually lose the nomination.
Because she will say or do anything at any cost.
If she would have focused on the facts and run a clean campaign I believe she would have won. Sad thing is that I don't think it's desperation, but the true Hillary we are seeing.
Josh wants us to give her credit, but seeing her chew off her opponents ear is just not impressive to me.
March 5, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Basically it played out as you might have predicted a couple of weeks ago. Ohio ended up with a larger margin because of the NAFTA kerfuffle, which was grossly overstated by Canadian TV but which the Obama campaign did not handle well. Obama didn't win Texas but he narrowed the gap significantly in a short time period. It's a disappointing result for us Obama supporters, but not a really surprising one.
March 5, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that lying in public was not the best way for his campaign to handle it.
March 7, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope I'm wrong, but it's starting to feel like race, race, race-baiting and it's working. The Farrakhan shiv from Russert, the persistent Muslim v. Christian questions (shamefully dodged by Hillary), the picture in tribal clothing, the Hussein name game. Supporters and pundits keep talking about the link up with terrorism, but I think it's more simple and more subtle. There are still wide swathes of racism and, more importantly, racial discomfort in this country. The strategy is remind everyone, all the time, that Obama is black.
How many times on CNN last night did John King say some variation of this: "Obama's ahead in X, lots of African Americans there." Almost every time. It was true, of course, that he dominated the black vote but I didn't hear a mantra with McCain's wins: "lots of old white guys there..." Or, "Obama really pulls in the urban professional, college educated." If the Clintons and then McCain can turn Obama into Jesse Jackson 2.0, then sadly, they've won.
March 5, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Racebating doesn't get any worse than the Clinton campaign ad that showed Obama about not only 20 shades darker than he actually is, but widened to make his nose look wider.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811
Hillary's campaign of course had nothing to do with it. It was only at their website' I guess it was an oversight.
This is worthy of Karl Rove at his most repulsive. I can't believe no one has challenged her on this.
March 5, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW! when I heard about this from other posts I just thought it was a rouge supporter. Crap that IS ON THE HILLARY WEBSITE!
So what is it going to take:
MLK/LBJ
Jesse Jackson won here twice
"something in the neighborhood"
longtime friend with the sheriff that blocked refugees at gunpoint from escaping New Orleans
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20commence.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Milestones%3A+Hillary+Clinton&st=nyt&oref=slogin
I mean really? What is it going to take?
March 6, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think she won the spin game last week.
First, he had to devote time, energy, resources to putting our several different fires. He was effective on the 3am call ad, but needed to stick with "judgment" not going directly to Iraq vote.
Second, I think them most effect charges (and difficult to rebut) are those they require him to prove a negative--he's secretly a muslim, he lacks substance, he doesn't have experience, he's not answering questions about Resko, etc. To successfully rebut these charges, people have to take the time or make an effort to investigate whether this is true or not. Lots of people are lazy and won't do it or don't really care about the answers.
Third, her complaints about media bias seem to have sunk in, at least with the media. Usually, Obama is very good at reframing issues, but he appears to have accepted this one and is responding by trying to argue that the assertion isn't true. It seems like a better approach would be to say that it could be true, but he can't do anything about it. He also can't change the fact that the public has an unfair bias against, see her high negatives. Life's not fair, you have to play the cards that you're dealt.
March 5, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
ctaylor:
I think it's because Obama is a secret Muslim and now everyone knows it.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? And who really gives a crap if he is?
I guess I just don't understand *why* a person's religion is such a big deal when there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. I mean, God Forbid we ever elect someone President who isn't a Christian. Whatever happened to freedom of religion?
Plus, I just don't get where this Muslim thing comes from with Obama. Are people just assuming it because of his name? If so, that is about the dumbest thing ever.
1. to ignore this is to ignore what GWB has been pounding the country with. That Muslims are the terrorists and they 'don't like us for our freedoms'. Sorry, but even if you lived under a rock, this is by now the country's conventional wisdom, at least subconciously, you can't have it both ways. period
give credit to Hillary, she had a few bumps and regrouped. Nobody defends her when she got bad press from day one. Obama gets a week of questionable press and he can't take it. Such is the nature of the beast.
Now they even blame HIllary for his 'bad press'or her going negative. Did Hillary cause Redko?IIRC, Dave Axelrod got the courts to change the start of the trial. How did Hillary do that? Did Hillary make the call to the Canadian Embassy?
AFAIC, Obama painted himself above the fray and reality set it. Last night's results say Obama is a worthy opponent when the ducks are in his corner. He's been tested, and gets a "C"
Hillary shows presidential pedigree after all the blows,because she's still standing.Lord knows its what we need in the WH after the current disaster.
I hear buyer's remorse and sour grapes from the Obama camp.
March 5, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was just a Perfect Storm of bad events for Obama: (1) the NAFTA "flip flop" hurts badly and can't be explained without considerable nuance, was a killer, especially in Ohio (2) the Farakhan/Tim Russert mess, coupled with additional garbage such as Hillary's careful "lack of knowledge" as to his Muslim roots, and the Drudge photo of Obama in Africa (3) the pledge of allegence/flag pin flap, (4) the unfortunate start date of the Rezko hearing, (5) the MSM's sudden attack of conscience over its "unfair" treatment of Hillary and (6) Hillary's last minute appearances on Saturday Night Live, Daily Show and 60 minutes.
I don't put a lot of credence in the effectiveness of the "3 A.M." ad, or other attack ads, but I could be wrong.
The key will now be whether Obama can get his equilibrium back in the upcoming primaries between now and Pennsylvania. I hate to see Dems attacking Dems, but it is important for Obama to show he can respond to the unfair innuendo.
March 5, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
WJoeP,
I hope that it is merely a coincidence that your conversion to Clinton repeats virtually every one of the Clinton campaign's talking points--even the none-too-subtle metaphor of "buyer's remorse" that pervades your narrative.
My view: Obama was behind in both these states by between 20-30 points as recent as two months ago; so the fact that Clinton won OH by a fair margin and TX by a narrow one doesn't tell me too much. If anything, Obama did a bad job of allowing Clinton to claim these victories as comebacks,when she just barely survived him. Plus she'll come out even in delegates. But she controls the spin.
March 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Workerbee, yes it was NAFTA. MSNBC exits show that, of people in Ohio who mad their decision in the last three days before the election, they broke 64-36 for Clinton.
March 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary will only be seeing a small number of delegates added to the her count. Yet she will blow the win out of proportion to sway the voters.
She wins by continuing to draw from her large bag of tricks which are too numerous to list here. As an example, her response on 60 Minutes this last Sunday to the repeated questioning about whether Obama is a Muslim just continued her "fear game" of raising doubts about him.
Check out this blog regarding the 60 Minutes interview:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-dantoni/hillary-crossed-the-line_b_89622.html
And if Hillary somehow wins the nomination, what's to stop Obama from running for President as an Independent or even creating a name for a third party?
March 5, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um
1. Gore-Nader.
2. Lieberman.
You think it's a good idea to dilute the Dem vote? How about we just try and talk Ralphie into running as a repub, or at least backing Ron Paul, instead?
March 5, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, something I actually can agree with Workerbee about!
March 5, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't read all of the comments above, so please pardon me if I repeat anything anyone has already said.
While for mass consumption a win is a win is a win. Yet, you could argue that she didn't really "win" all that much. There are two things to consider:
1. If we ignore Vermont and RI for a moment (assuming they cancel each other out as has been reported) she "won" Ohio by 10pts and Texas by about 4pt.
On February 14th - the Qunnipiac Poll had her ahead in Ohio 55:34, Rasmussen had it at 51:37 -
Huge leads that were drawn down to a ten point win in a state that she a.) had to have and b.) was perfectly set up for her campaign, her issues, and her demographics.
On the same date, Rasmussen had Texas with Hillary leading 54:38. Ultimately she wins by 4pts.
Correct me if I'm wrong but when you are ahead by 15 or 20 pts three weeks out - aren't you supposed to win? and wouldn't it be deadly to all of your hopes if you didn't? (Sort of like you happen to have a 7 game lead with 17 games to play and spit the bit like my beloved NY Mets did last year) i.e: if you are up by that much and lose its a complete choke job.
Therefore, it seems that an arugment could be made that by reducing these overwhelming margins, Obama "won" something too - especially since it has real meaning in terms of rendering the delegate split virtually even.
2.) Delegate math - the most important issue - it completely works against her even in the states she "won."
Thus it brings us to a question that isn't as existential as it wounds, what does "win" mean?
She "wins" the primaries in three states and he "wins" the primary in one. Ok good night for Hillary.
Yet: as we've been hearing all along its about delegates, not states (I think that's been a Clinton talking point more than once during the losing streak)- Thus, if we look at it that way: she "wins" delegates in RI and he "wins" in Vermont. Its been reported that they break even between these two. Lets assume that they do.
Now we go to Ohio and Texas. She "wins" both primaries and it looks like he "wins" the Texas caucus. Good night for Hillary. Yet - There is almost no chance the math actually works for her in the end. The Ohio race turned out to be about 10% - assuming of course that they managed to count all of the votes in Cleveland (why does it always take so long there?).
Ten point wins do not seem to be resulting in major delagate differences in prior contests. I haven't heard any reason to assume otherwise here. Thus while she will pick up a few here - I doubt it will be all that many.
On to Texas: the allocation of delagates based on turnout in the last election means some State Senate districts have far more delegates to award than others. Under this structure, winning the state is useful for the press and a sense of momentum, but for all practical purposes its irrelevant. It matters where you got your votes. (Kind of like the electoral college but, if possible, more confusing).
Add in the fact that Obama is likely to pick up a few extra in the caucus portion and he is likely to wind up picking up more delegates in Texas regardless of who "wins" the state.
Thus - why did she win - really isn't the question - its did she "win" and you can't answer that until you define what "win" means.
I realize these issues seem to split hairs and minimize what she did last night - don't think for one minute though that the superdelegates won't ask these questions. While what is a "win" isn't a question the average voter is likely to ask, it is one that a super will ask. These are mostly experienced and hardended political people - they understand what it means when you close a twenty point gap to 4 pts in three weeks and they understand the concept of who wins more delegates etc.
March 5, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why did she win? Women once again rose to her defense, along with older and working class whites (and Hispanics in Texas) who just can't seem to get comfortable with their new "hip black friend", Barack Obama...who is Christian and pledges the allegiance, AS FAR AS I KNOW.
It seems in the past few weeks that Obama's Teflon coating has worn off...And Hillary is like that tough grease on the pan. Obama is going to have to risk getting his hands dirty and start scrubbing to get rid of her. He needs to put a little substance behind his considerable eloquence, and show he is tough enough to handle the reality of politics. I think many people respond to his message promoting a new brand of politics, and would love to give him the chance to fulfill that promise. But...and it is a big But, we all know he first needs to win in the Fall against a very tough and tested John McCain....Hillary may serve an important role in pushing the Obama campaign to find its voice again, and reframe this race. We will see, if he can't step up, Hillary is nmore than ready to do so (and step on his neck on the way by).
March 5, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with David that there are no easy answers for this. NAFTA and Mark "Let's concede the caucus states" Penn aside I don't understand how Obama could have done so poorly in the rural areas of Ohio but won so many other heartland states. Have the dynamics shifted that much or is the Democrat system complete trainwreck?
The worse part is that the system is so complex that the common narratives don't explain anything. I don't think it's possible to fix the nominating process without simplifying it first. It's enough to make a person seriously consider small government theory. Look for a George Will column on how the Dems can't even organize themselves let alone the government soon.
The Dems have created their own monster.
March 5, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it odd that people are willing to attribute broad national trends (e.g., the Obama "bubble" has burst) to the particulars of Ohio.
Isn't it more that what happened in Ohio is what happened in Ohio?
Do you think, what, all the people who have already voted for Obama are starting to regret it?
March 5, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the night of 3/4/08 I refused to listen to any election reporting until 9:00. I have grown tired of surfing the BIG 4 cable stations and hearing the same thing.
To that point, the reason we have instant analysis is because of the 24/7 nature of reporting today. Pundits grasp onto the obvious /easy answer and expound on it ad infinitum. They're all the same except perhaps for the right or left POV.
An effort to define what happened last night is at best a guess. In my mind Obama hit the wall of reality in the few days before the vote and there was enough backsplash to effect the voters decision in all of the states.
Today I heard Obama say that the world is listening and watching what goes on in this election season implying he will continue to try to stay above the mud as much as is possible. John Kerry, on C-SPAN made the smartest ( yeh Kerry ) when he said that it was silly for Hillary to claim that because she won the states she did she was best positioned to win in November.
It would be just as problematic of Obama to say that because he won in the red states he was better positioned to win in November. Actually, in my mind the latter argument seems a little more reasonable but so many factors enter into the casting of a vote that there is probably no good reason to take one side over another.
The big reasons affecting choice are, I believe are:
1) Backlash against the Clintons from the right
and left.
2) The inability to pull the lever for a black
man.
Lets see what happens in the next couple of months.
nomoregwb East Hampton,NY
March 5, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know a ton of Texans, including Republicans, who don't mind the Clintons. Republicans would rather vote for McCain? That's not surprising, is it? I'm not sure I'd put much faith in the idea that Republicans will desert their party to vote for Obama.
March 5, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It just never ceases to amaze me how many people on this site and others are so puzzled over why Hillary still wins elections. Must be some sort of trick, some device that made it happen, right? Like bad coverage from CNN for Obama - and that is really rich, by the way. Last weekend, when showing Bill Clinton stumping in Ohio, CNN's headline was "Help From Hubby." Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall CNN tagging a segment on Michelle Obama with "Help From Wifey."
The fault, dear Obama supporters, is not in the stars but in yourselves - Hillary won because more people voted for her, because outside of the invective-filled echo chamber Clinton haters live in, there are lots of people in this country who find her to be a smart, capable politician who would make a fine president. And they vote. Yeah, stupid voters....
March 5, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
cscs wrote: "Do you think, what, all the people who have already voted for Obama are starting to regret it?"
No, I am not saying that.
I am saying that as more information slowly emerges about the real Obama and about how he has sucessfully manipulated many voters with a very clever marketing strategy, his campaign will continue to sink.
Let all of us loyal and true Democrats hope that this happens before he gets the nomination!
March 5, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
But how will his "campaign sink" if he is not losing support among his base?
And, if anything, the way Obama has been moving up in the polls everywhere -- even where he lost last night, he lost by less than the polls showed a while ago, no? -- suggests that his campaign still has momentum. Just not enough momentum to make up all the ground he had to in Ohio, etc.
And I really don't even know how you can conclude he has "sucessfully manipulated many voters" and now they're catching on? I don't think that's how voters think or work.
The Dem election right now is about "change" versus "experience." You pick one or the other. Voters in Ohio felt Clinton's experience was more important.
Is there even any evidence that voters think they were "manipulated"? Has anyone on CNN or other news outlets who do their "real people" interviews said that?
March 5, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
cscs,
Even a vote in a primary does not mean wholehearted support. Lots of Obama supporters, especially, in the blogosphere, presume everyone previously won over to vote for him hate Hillary as much as they do and are as passionate about Obama as they are. Many aren't, and are perfectly willing to change the mind about who is the better candidate after seeing what the rest of Democratic voters do. Like me. I didn't have much of a preference after balancing out their positives and strengths. I'm not going to be angry if Democrats decide it's Hillary. It's there in a lot of the more sophisticated polls like Pew's, much of Obama's support is soft: he's intriguing, they want to see more about him, people are sure of what they feel about Hillary and McCain, but not sure of Obama, might have taken a risk and voted for him but could easily change their mind with something they later learn about him. Especially the Independents that voted for Obama in primaries, many show evidence of being open to going over to McCain.
March 5, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hence the doubt on the Canada NAFTA talking point. The cloud of impropriety (even imagined) on NAFTA, made Ohio supporters ran the other direction.
Same holds true with the FEAR card - hence the voters thinking "Well if we are attacked at 3am, even if Hillary doesn't have a lot of experience, she always has Bill there with her".
Decency, ethics, judgement can't hold a candle to inflaming base emotions.
Hillary is slamming Obama for appealing to the voters better instincts (Hope) while she herself is dealing in the darker emotions ANGER/FEAR.
March 5, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to raise this question (but already did elsewhere). Putting aside Ohio for a moment, can the difference in support for Sen Obama from white males between say, the "Potomac" primaries and Texas have anything to do with the portion of the country where Texas is. Put another way for the elderly among us, what, if you recall, was the reason for President Kennedy's trip to Texas in November, 1963?
March 5, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
To shore up support in Texas. But what does that have to do with white males?
March 5, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or to visit an old flame in her hospital room. Now, where did I hear that? D.M. Thomas? Don Delillo? Quien sabe.
March 5, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the reasons sports reporting, in my opinion, is so much better and informative abou sports than political reporting is about politics is that in sports there's a really professional attitude to the business. Sports reporters, in order to get anywhere, have to actually be good at what they do and their readers and editors actually demand they have some expertise, insight and ability to communicate nuance, detail, and what goes on in reality vs what appears to be going on, on the surface.
I mention this because many of the real nuts and bolts... the dynamics of the primary season have not been examined in an cold, intelligent, analytical way. Because of this, there's a lot of emotional, but not necessarily very well reasoned analysis among people in the media and in the electorate. The focus on trivia, personality and the horse race completely obscures a great deal of information and understanding about the fundamentals in the game being played.
Here's my take as someone who isn't particularly in love with the two corporate, centrist choices we are stuck with at this point.
Clinton's game has been off for some time for several reasons, but the most basic is her team of consultants, etc... did not anticipate the scenario they are faced with. Caught off guard, they had prepared a game plan for a very different field and had to improvise. They weren't very adept at this process and appeared to be flailing around without much positive effect. For weeks, everything they tried was characterized in the press and definitely by the Obama camp as subtly racist or dirty politics and the forceful, emotional condemnation of the slightest perceived racist criticism particularly set the tone for everything that occured. In essence, Hillary could do no right.
Whether legitimate or not, they couldn't find any way to criticize or create contrast with Obama that wasn't drawing this intensely negative response. This problem occurs in part because there are so few substantive differences in their politics and in their proposals. As I said above, both are centrist, corporate Democrats hawking pretty much the same remedies for the nation's ills.
Those rememdies, BTW, are also pretty much the same ones that DC Democrats have been selling for years and years: bring all parties to the table, find a way to generate "bipartisan" compromise and thus somehow magically unite the country as they fantasize it was once united around "bipartisanship" despite abosolutely no evidence this was ever truly the case. Their solutions, despite their talk of change, are in reality just more of the same. They are selling the "new and improved" version of the status quo as opposed to "Brand X" status quo. That's what makes contrasting and criticizing one another so difficult and what makes it often appear petty, personal, and of little genuine import. In short, what these two Dems are selling more than anything else is changing the face of the status quo: not actually changing the status quo. That doesn't mean they won't be better than McCain, but it does mean that there's a reason Democratic voters get so disheartened and lack enthusiasm for Democrats who get elected and it is in large part because they don't deliver the changes they promise. More often than not, as with the Democratic majority elected in 06, they get elected and then are weak, ineffective, and full of excuses.
Nonetheless, in most of the primaries Obama won, he did not trounce her. In other words, there is a hard core and very substantial number of Demoicratic voters who definitely prefer Hillary over Obama despite all the gains his campaign has made in a variety of areas. Still, the Hillary camp could not find a way to criticize Obama in any way that didn't come off making her look mean, tawdry, and racist. This barrage of criticism against Hillary's campaign tactics kept her team off balance and they weren't playing the game on their terms. Even those who pay very little attention to sports understand that in every contest, it is always the team that plays their own game that wins in the end albeit with some adaptation and adjustment to what's goin on, on the field.
Thus, during this period of time of the Clinton camp's confusion and rethinking of strategy, the Obama team's continuation of their game plan was coming off as brilliant mostly because they weren't doing anything differently. For weeks on end the Obama "brand" was portrayed in a glowing, positive way on every tv screen in America and on the radio and in the ads. The aura of inevitability began growing up around Obama--the candidate who apparently could do no wrong. The string of victories made the Obama strategy appear brilliant, and they made Obama himself look more and more like a candidate of destiny. All his positive attributes grew in the mind of the media and in the minds of the public who were paying attention. Victory does that to every candidate, just as defeat diminishes the image and attractiveness of those who find themselves on the losing end of things.
In essence, you had a situation in which up until just a couple of weeks ago, Obama had the distinct advantage of being virtually bulletproof when it came to criticism or any sort of negative that was thrown his way. But this has been a game in which both sides have been very well funded so that even while Obama's fundraising was reaching new heights, Hillary's extraordinary fundraising continued at a very brisk pace though it was portrayed as somehow not going very well in comparison to Obama's ongoing jackpot of contributions. The truth, however, was that while fundraising may have slowed for her, Hillary continued to raise significant money and thus was able to remain competetive in every aspect of the campaign. We all know that it often happens that once a particular candidate is scene as the inevitable victor, the opponent's fundraising begins to dry up or even disappear. Despite being bested on the money, Hillary's ammo did not run out and her ability to continue to fight kept her in the game and able finally, to find a way to criticize Obama without the charge of racism being hurled at her. Hillary also was blessed with ongoing very dark portents in the media about the economy particularly in the coming months and years as well as vague stories about the resurgence of the real Al Qaeda and the possibility of Bin Laden's gang pulling off another mass murder. The mortgage crisis, oil price increases, the diminishing value of the dollar, the Fed lowering interes rates dramtically to little effect, increasing discussion of the return of stagflation and so on. This created a growing unease among the citizenry which naturally increases the interest of many in desiring a leader they trust.
Thus, the table was set for an offensive by team Hillary on the issue of trust which dovetails nicely with her long established themes of experience and competence. If the message shifts from who you like best to who do you trust more, Hillary cleary reaps some benefit as the phone call ad demonstated. It isn't a huge advantage as results from OH and TX demonstrate, but it is/was enough to allow her camp to start playing their game. Obama's team, being a disciplined organization continued playing the game according to their strategy which has brought them this far, but they didn't adapt effectively enough to the trust issue raised by Hillary to finish her off last night.
Now, as far as Hillary's team is concerned, the trick is how they keep the campaign dialogue on the issue of who do you trust as opposed to who do you like? Can they do it? Can they keep the conversation on their turf? We will see, but that seems to be the issue that made the difference and now once again restores among Hillary and her followers some confidence and puts her in a much more positive light with the electorate generally speaking.
Why did this tactic agasint Obama work where others failed? As I mentioned above, they weren't effective enough in responding to the trust issue but why? It could have been they didn't have enough time, but it's probably too soon to tell.
One of the fundamentals that has largely been overlooked since Iowa is whether or not Obama has really seen much competition thus far in his career. Certainly on the Federal level of campaigning Obama has not faced much competition prior to the Presidential contest. His election to the Senate against Alan Keyes was a virtual coronation. Even Republican leaders were openly supporting Obama, not because he could bring people together, but because Keyes is an extremist, right wing crackpot and an embarassment to the Republican Party. His primary win that year was made for him because of the number of candidates splitting votes. He emerged the winner because he ran to the left of the crowd, but it wasn't a victory that could be compared to a genuine rough and tumble primary where strong candidates go toe to toe and slug it out. As the only black man elected to the US Senate since Ed Brooke, Obama received glowing coverage from the moment he became the Democratic nominee and the white Republican frontrunner's campaign imploded on news of his massive hypocrisy and weirdness which set the stage for Keyes' elevation to Republican Senate Nominee.
Now, here in the big league and in the league championship game preceeding the world championship, the opposition has found a way to finally critique Obama without being labeled racist and in reaction to the first set of blows he showed signs of being hurt. This does not mean he will collapse because the same factors that have kept Hillary in the game: money and the strength of his core support in competition with her means he's not getting knocked out anytime soon. But what yesterday shows is that Obama is vulnerable on the trust issue at this time. He could spin that his way. We will see if he can do that in the late stages of the game. He may well be able to triumph even if he gets hurt by the trust issue as a result of running up the score early. It will be interesting to see how he and his camp play it.
The larger question this raises is whether or not Obama is capable of withstanding the unrestrained and completely unprincipled attacks everyone knows the Republicans will roll out against him. His record provides little or no evidence to help us answer this question. What we do know is that he has vulnerabilities such as the trust issue, his association with Rezko and others.
If he is toe to toe with the opposition will he be able to stay on his feet and win? Time will tell. Answering such questions is one of the important functions of a primary season. I am not sure whether he can or not. But, as I see it, those are some of the fundamental factors that are involved in what has developed thus far. I'm no sports writer, but if we had some political folks as good at their game as , for example, Bob Costas is at his we would have much more insightful perspective to view all of this from.
March 5, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great analysis, plenty to agree and disagree with.
I encourage you to post this in the Blog section, so more people can read and comment on it.
March 5, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nonetheless, in most of the primaries Obama won, he did not trounce her."
Uhhh, nope. Actually everywhere except MO and CT where he won he DID trounce her:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
March 5, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry Dancing Bear (I love your moniker BTW) but he did not blow her out in most states and he paricularly failed to do so on delegates. Yes, he beat her in them, but a real landslide is 65% and up. He has few states in his column with those kinds of numbers.
One of the interesting problems this process presents for Democrats is the representative nature of delegate selection. A real and genuine trouncing that results in a lopsided win in terms of delegates would require results to be consistently on the order of 70% vs 30% and that didn't happen.
One of the few things that is clear is that neither candidate is capable of trouncing the other and so both camps are in a real bind in terms of being able to win the nomination with elected delegates.
March 5, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a real landslide is 65% and up"
I love the selection of definitions to fit the hypothesis. You said "in most of the primaries Obama won, he did not trounce her." And now you define that to mean 65% and up? How convenient. So a 17% spread in WI, or 18% in AL and UT doesn't count? 19% in LA? 20% in VT? 23% in MD? 28% in SC? 29% in VA was not a trouncing? Must be a 30% spread? Wow, that's a high standard.
Well, at least I still get to count IL, DC, AK and GA.
March 5, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is a high standard and it ought to be.
No one is saying he didn't win. The point is that he didn't win with enough of a margin to really leap out in front in terms of delegates. He has not trounced her anymore than she has trounced him. They both have strengths and that means under the rules it will be difficult, if not impossible, for either to win outright with elected delegates. Some of the people in Camp Obama seem to have adopted a belief that only their perspective counts and that is not particularly healthy for them. One of the most dangerous positions to adopt is the one that proclaims him the annointed one prior to that being the case. He's run a very good campaign. He is formidable. It is not yet, however, clear that he will prevail.
As I've made clear, neither of them excites me in a big way so it isn't like I'm here just to burst the Obama bubble. I just think it's important not to succumb to one's wishes versus what is real.
March 5, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
While most of that post is a truism, I'd disagree with this:
"He has not trounced her anymore than she has trounced him."
The only states where Clinton's margin has exceeded 10% are AR, OK, RI, NY and TN. I just listed 12 primaries where Obama won by 17% or more. And that doesn't include the caucus blowouts Obama has had.
March 6, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you feel a little ridiculous arguing that your guy is way ahead when they are practically even in the popular vote?
March 7, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
The situation has been especially extreme this time because of the nature of Obama's marketing. It's been highly emotional and non-specific to date, and successful. Now that the more wonky campaign has managed some wins on more wonky concerns, that's going to change some. (And blame on "media" must now include blogosphere, which is driving much coverage.)
And don't you think that sports reporters too are affected somewhat when there is a magical team that comes out of nowhere? Ever see some start attributing all kinds of strengths and mojo that might not really be there because of lots of positive buzz or "momentum"?
One break Obama caught is the writers' strike at a time his shtick might have been deconstructed by comedians. It came at precisely a very good time in his momentum, he was left free of the natural bent towards cynicism of many Americans. Hillary's persona has already been deconstructed by comedians for at least a decade and a half, she really couldn't get much out of vague inspirational, "go Obams/go Cubs."
March 5, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
All good points I must say.
Sports people are not perfect and they are subject to having their emotions or other bias color their analysis. One recent example I can think of was the elevation of the NE Patriots s the greatest football team of all time prior to the Superbowl. Many voices pointed out along the way that their schedule wasn't that tough and made other valid observations that contradicted the herd's decision that they couldn't be beat. Even during the Super Bowl, the moment the Pats inched ahead, the announcers instantly started talking about how obvious it had been throughout the game that they were the best in the game and so on. When the clock finally ran out and the Pats had lost the Superbowl, suddenly those previous criticisms all sounded a bit more insightful and made those who declared the Pats the best ever sound just a bit less authoritative and the hoopla for New England came to a quick close.
My main point is that the sports people are just much, much better at doing their job in a highly competent, professional, accurate, and honest way than the political reporters are. One reason for this IMO is the remote nature of the relationship of the public to political media (corporate media) is very different from that seen in the sports world.
In the sports world you have constant interplay between the fans and the writers/broadcasters that demands far more of their analysis. The sports writers/reporters/broadcasters don't always agree with the fans and say so, but they also feel some obligation to them to be responsive, to ask the questions fans want asked and to get the responses to their concerns that fans are interested in. Political and regular news people feel this obligation in only the faintest, most remote sense. For them it is more of a noblesse oblige excercise in which they will decide what people want to know or should know because they are too stupid to determine such things for themselves.
Every six-pack guzzling doofus in every American city can explain to you the most specific and important details of local sports figures' latest contracts, the options, bonuses, and so on. Every sports afficianado is inimately familiar with the primary financial considerations of the various franchises, leagues, what drives their profits, the interaction between fan support and tv and radio revenues and the like. Because of this, they hold the newspapers, the tv and radio sports reporters and announcers accountable and the management of the news organizations respond to fans in a way very unlike how editors and publishers refuse to respond to reader input (indeed it is a point of pride to them not to be responsive to the public when it has a problem with their reporting as that would show "bias") except to rationalize why they have done what they've done in the most self-serving and uncritical manner especially if there is criticism from the right. Just take a look at the remarkably arrogant and self-justifying take the WAPO or NTY "reader's advocates" have taken in recent years. Seems there's no obvious fuck up, dishonesty or falsehood they can't justify in the arena of political and news reporting.
Ironically of course, there's not nearly as much intelligent reaction from consumers of regular news precisely because the political reporting is do dreadful, uninformative, and shallow. It takes a massively incompetent and inaccurate bit of reporting to get any sort of reaction from our major corporate news generators these days. Look at the horrendous job WAPO, NYT, Time, Newsweek, the networks, etc... have been doing now for the past 20 plus years! It's remarkable really that they have sucked so badly and been so wide of the mark so often during this period yet have paid absolutely no professional price for it. Quite the opposite is true really.
It is not rare for sports people, for example, to admit they were wrong or missed something as it is with "news" people in the corporate media. The seriousness with which sports types take the issues they cover (steroids being just one example) and their obligation to readers/viewers in telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may is obviously of tremendous importance than is the case with news and political reporters. It's really remarkable when you consider the cavalier nature of how new and political reporters explain away their innacuracies, falsehoods, and simple mis-statement of easy to verify facts!
It isn't unusual for sports people to openly and plainly criticize the viewpoints of others in their profession--sometimes even at the same institution, paper, station. It is also okay in sports for the reporters to often openly take one side or another about issues/developments on a team, within an organization, between leagues and so on. In other words, they don't always pretend to be nuetral when they believe they know which side is right and which side is wrong... they take some risks trying to help their readers understand the truth of the situation and not just report "both" or all sides as though it is impossible to determine if one is right or wrong. They provide evidence for what they believe to be true and they verify their sources.
I would also say that if every sports nut with a substandard education can understand the wide range of difficult and complicated statistics that are increasingly bandied about (and they do)that level of expertise and understanding stands in stark contrast to the excuses the corporate media use to mask their own poor work when they claim the American people don't understand or aren't interested in the details of policies, particularly as it relates to budgets and the economy. The truth is that the reporters and editors aren't interested in and don't understand those issues so they focus on the far simpler and less important trivia, personalities and horse race issues they themselves prefer. The political/new people act as though the important thing in choosing a political leader is how much fun they might be at a cocktail party or if they are a better host and handler of the Washington press corps. Part of the media's job is to educate the public about the important issues before the government at home and abroad and there's no getting around that. The way the media shirks this responsibility and how they get away with it, is just astounding to me. The standard sorts of excuses corporate media personalities, spokespeople, executives, and the rest offer to cover up their own abysmal failure to educate the public is simply shameful.
As for Obama getting easy or favorable treatment, the writer's strike and such yeah, I think Obama had a combination of being the popular new kid in the game, plain old luck and being in the right place at the right time that has certainly helped, but it hasn't been the only reason he has met with success. Some of it is really that he does have a strong appeal, makes a very good impression, looks good and he certainly has more charisma than a typical politician (though IMO he's vastly overrated in that department). And I think without question, in the current political environment and within the Democratic Party primary process being a black man has helped him. I don't know that it will be that kind of asset in the general but we'll find out in the near future if he wins the nomination.
He also lucked out in facing Hillary who is in many ways the Barry Bonds of US politics except the media only privately admit that they hate her guts and everything she represents from their point of view. In sports they just openly state why they think Bonds is a jerk, a cheater, egomaniac, oughtta be in jail, etc... I'm not buying into the Hillary as victim line, but anyone paying attention can see and it is well known that the national media dislike her intensely. To think that hasn't played a role in suppressing her campaign's effectiveness is to put blinders on and thus has been a real factor in Obama's success.
March 5, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
just a shout out that I read your comment and enjoyed it.
March 5, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
Allow me to join the amen chorus and say that I am digging the heck out of your comparison/contrast of sports and political coverage.
I have often found it effective to discuss politics in bars and other social settings with heavy doses of sports analogies. Yet it continues to amaze me how many liberal/progressive people will not even touch the area of sports, as if anything that does not hold our unanimous interest ought to be presumed trivial and unworthy of serious discourse. Yet, I have had a degree of success at getting through alot (hardly most, but alot nonetheless) of thick conservative minds by applying political thought to sports (Hunter S. Thompson was really good at this near the end of his life and career, by the way).
Consider the emotional intensity of Iraq and the overall role of the military in foreign policy, for example, signified by the popular bromide tandem of stay the course and support and troops. When you put it in the context of whether Lou Piniela might really be disloyal to Cub Nation by bringing Carlos Marmol in from the bullpen instead of "supporting" Carlos Zambrano by letting "stay the course" while coughing up a string of walks, hits and earned runs, the idea that it is somehow treasonous to consider changing course becomes absurd in the mind of the fan. Some may even begin to look at life a little differently.
High fives, oleeb!
March 6, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I wonder whether Mark Penn is the issue. When he was running the Clinton campaign as a coronation, there was no GOTV organization past Super Tuesday. That was why Obama was able to win essentially unopposed in February. But now that he is gone, the campaign organization has had time and correctly directed money to bring out the vote in states like Ohio and Texas. Who's to say how she would have done in Virginia had the campaign been really active. Where they did put in the effort, as in California and New Jersey, they won.
Even the tone of the campaign has changed. She now attacks and the media loves it.
March 5, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And so maybe Obama has been only a paper tiger all along. Time will tell.
March 5, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did some qucik checking on random counties in west Texas and there are some in which the votes for the Democratic primary FAR outnumber the votes for the Republican primary. In all of the counties I've looked at Clinton won handily. I certainly don't know if this was a concerted effort by Republicans to vote for HRC in the manner that Rush Limbaugh promoted or if it's a racial thing or what but is curious. This is DEEP Republican territory.
Here are some numbers:
Runnels County pop. 11495
Rep: 840
Dem: 1125 61% Clinton
Mitchell County pop. 9698
Rep: 350
Dem: 1075 62% Clinton
Nolan County (don't have the pop, sorry, but it ain't big!)
Rep: 287
Dem: 3049 71% Clinton
Terry County pop 12761
Rep: 253
Dem: 2027
These numbers come from the NYTimes interactive county map of TX.
Kinda interesting, no?
March 5, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that until the results came in last night Sen. Obama clearly had almost unstoppable momentum. Which makes the question posed for this thread a very pivotal question: what happened?
Something very significant has clearly occurred.
Sen. clinton has stopped his momentum and appears to be gaining momentum of her own. In my opinion the reason is that she is now beginning to emerge as the better candidate for the general election.
For a long time there was nothing very factual about all of Sen. Obama's shortcomings in the media. It reminded me of how the press had fawned over the candidacy of George W. But as this contest goes on, perhaps the media is starting to look for a different theme, one that is more factual about Sen Obama (they have to change all the time to gain attention).
I would like to stress that my take on Sen. Obama is probably different from most people, but I do usually have good insight into what makes people tick. I actually think that Sen. Obama is just in this campaign as an ego thing: it is all just about him. This perception has made me very nervous about having him as the nominee.
March 5, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I share your perception but have had difficulty articulating what my evidence is. In the closer to the last debate both said that they were in it to help other people but she left the impression that she was in it because she had been blessed and wished to give back and he left the impression that helping other people was so great because it made him feel better.
A continuing theme from Obama is loneliness: it comes through in his descriptions of his childhood and in the descriptions of his childhood acquaitances describing him as tagging along where he wasn't particularly wanted and in his description of joining the Christian Church because he wanted to belong to a community and having done so despite his recognition that he did not share all the tenets of the faith (which he also recognized when discomfited by the greater logical consistency of Alan Keyes position.) It is interesting to me that he chose to stay in Hawaii when his mother chose to go back to Indonesia. He thanked his grandparents but not his Mom in his highschool yearbook and I wonder whether or not this is simply a reflection of who had the most role in raising him or whether it reflected anger at his mother.
March 7, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
She won because:
1. She played the media expertly; the tide obviously turned toward her favor. She was out and talking with the press non-stop. I heard this morning she was on every single morning show. Obama was elusive and did not get his message out.
2. It's the economy, stupid. James Carville reiterated it during last Sunday's Meet the Press, and it panned out for her in OH and TX. She's the bread and butter candidate, and her core consitutency, who may have previously leaned toward Obama, went with her.
3. Kitchen sink, Rovian tactics worked.
4. The Rush factor.
Obama has got to hit back hard and on-point. He did it during the South Carolina debate with the Wal-Mart swipe, and that worked. But if he is not effective, then all of his momentum will burst, and his newly invigorated supporters will quickly turn apathetic and stay at home for November.
March 5, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at the Ohio numbers last night. Now ask yourself, can Obama win Ohio in the general election? For that matter, with its heavy latino population, can Obama win Florida? Can he win Nevada? Can he win New Mexico?
I would say that for the above mentioned states it would be very tough going for Obama in the general election. And when you note that, you have to wonder how exactly Obama would pull of a general election victory?
March 5, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the war, stupid.
(Pre-emptive: For the humorless, that's not an insult. Go watch The War Room.)
March 5, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I very much enjoyed perusing your excellent post.
Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head. Team Hillary has been trying to zero in on the trust/competence issue, but it was a very hard target to hit. But recently events (and a couple of new TV adsJ) have helped her find the range.
March 5, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
When delegate selection started last night here at a precinct caucus in Central Texas (which Obama won 65 to 25), there was a small Clinton huddle of mostly older white women (one man, no one under 40, all white) and a somewhat larger, younger, more diverse, and certainly more vocal and energized huddle of Obama supporters.
I had to run the math for the delegate split (out of 9), which, because of the small population, vascillated back and forth--6 to 3, two more for Obama made it 7 to 2, then one more for Clinton moved it back to 6 to 3--so I got a chance to observe both groups, even though I was there, eventually, for Obama.
One thing really stood out for me last night, though: the Clinton crowd was, in a word, ANGRY.
The numbers in other states have shown that Clinton supporters have been much more likely than Obama supporters to prefer either candidate. But I think the Clinton strategy over the last few weeks is helping to change those numbers and that may, in part, explain her "victory" in Texas last night.
March 5, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has brought this anger on himself by his demeaning attitude towards Hillary. They may be willing to vote any Democrat in the GE but I doubt that they will work for him. The willingness to vote for him is not because they like him -- many don't -- but because they are Democratic loyalists and knowledgeable about the differences between the parties.
March 7, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
When delegate selection started last night here at a precinct caucus in Central Texas (which Obama won 65 to 25), there was a small Clinton huddle of mostly older white women (one man, no one under 40, all white) and a somewhat larger, younger, more diverse, and certainly more vocal and energized huddle of Obama supporters.
I had to run the math for the delegate split (out of 9), which, because of the small population, vascillated back and forth--6 to 3, two more for Obama made it 7 to 2, then one more for Clinton moved it back to 6 to 3--so I got a chance to observe both groups, even though I was there, eventually, for Obama.
One thing really stood out for me last night, though: the Clinton crowd was, in a word, ANGRY.
The numbers in other states have shown that Clinton supporters have been much more likely than Obama supporters to prefer either candidate. But I think the Clinton strategy over the last few weeks is helping to change those numbers and that may, in part, explain her "victory" in Texas last night.
March 5, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thom Hartmann opened his radio show today saying that there are reports that Republicans have been calling in to right wing radio stations across Texas this morning complaining that they were disenfranchised by crossing over to vote for Hillary as instructed by Limbaugh...that they cast the Hillary vote, then realized that the Dem ballot didn't let them vote for some Republican stuff down ticket. So the Fox host asked for people to email if they'd done the Limbaugh-Hillary vote in TX, and in just the next 14 minutes Hartmann was there, they had gotten over 1200 emails. I wonder how this could be analyzed in terms of votes.
Ever drive across Texas and try to get something on the radio? Wall to wall right wing blather.
PS. Oklahomajohn, you should read Obama's memoir, Dreams From My Father, for some deeper insight into why he's running. As Axelrod says, this guy embodies what he talks about.He IS what he SAYS.
March 5, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
At our caucus, Katy, I had at least one Republican crossover who when he saw the folks around him were voting Obama called his wife and had her rush there to add to the Clinton count as well. So who won the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Caucus vote?
March 5, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link or leave!
March 5, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about underdog status. I have a long post on the question here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/of-underdogs-and-old-boxers.php
March 5, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody in the press seems to have drank the Clinton's Kool-aide. Obama is the one who managed the amazing feat by pounding away at her massive lead (Does anyone remember how far ahead Hillary was after Wisconsin???) Obama succeded at maintaining his delegate numbers.
It seems that nobody recalls what a disaster the Clinton camp created with its bumbling and lack of planning an preparation for post-Feb. 5 contests. The fact that they were entirely caught off guard by the Texas Caucus rules and the state's distribution of delegates was a shining example of mismanagement in so many ways: sort of the Hurricane Katrina of campaigns.
Even before Wisconsin, most primary watchers agreed that Hillary would take Ohio and Texas, but when Obama took the lead in some polls and with his big winning streak, his loss helped put sails in the story that Clinton somehow is a big winner. Really she's not.
More than anything, the Clintons and the surrogates are master spinners. From Carville on Meet the Press this Sunday to Begula on CNN last night and Lanny Davis later on (they're everywhere), they are spinning like crazy in much the same way that Brownie & Bush were telling the country that everything was peach keen while we were all watching New Orleans go to hell.
I have confidence in the superdelegates that are holding out can cut right through all of the blurring of the lines and moving of goal posts that the Clinton camp is doing, and pretty much take what Donna Brazille says as what Al Gore and the rest of the graceful Democratic elder statesmen (and women)-the grown-ups, if you will–are thinking. Things are really in their hands now, and I believe they will do the right thing and give Obama his victory.
March 5, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is fair to point out that Obama closed the gap on Clinton.
It is, however, also fair to point out the massive imbalance in spending that occured on the airwaves and in other campaign activities that was all in Obama's favor. He outspent her by massive margins. Yet, given that he swamped her in terms of airtime and all the rest he still could not finish her off.
What I'm getting at is that both things can be true. He should get some credit for closing the gap, but she also should get some credit for hanging on despite the onslaught of spending by the Obama camp.
March 5, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should not answer a hypothetical question, even if it comes from Tim Russert. In two different debates, his resultant answers have caused problems. The press conference the other day went rather poorly, and may have waved a red flag among some reporters. You never, ever walk away from a tough press conference, even if it means being late for something else.
For lack of any other descriptive, I think Hillary went “Steel Magnolia” and appears to have accomplished a better resonance with voters. When Bill Clinton is seen speaking from the back of an old pickup truck in west Texas, you know her campaign has both an inner discipline and the ability to adjust to the changing senses of the electorate.
Obama has a "big state" syndrome, and its showing.
March 5, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary survived in Texas because of Rush. I was staffing an Obama table at a precinct just outside of Austin and thanking folks for sticking out the 1 1/2 hour wait to vote in the primary and encouraging them to stick around for the caucuses that followed. (Our caucus ended up starting at 9 p.m.) Two separate folks volunteered they would wait as long as it took as each reported having a Republican co-worker come to work in the a.m. saying they had just voted for Hillary to try to keep her in the race so she would keep undercutting Obama. I have no idea if they worked for the same employer, and thus whether they were both talking about the same co-worker, but my guess is they weren't and that a number of Repubs in Texas actually voted for Clinton for the sole purpose of having her continue to attack Obama. It would accordingly be interesting to see any exit poll break downs on Repub votes in the Democratic Primary in Texas to see what they may show.
March 5, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you from Iowa or Texas?
One thing that might backfire on Obama is shipping people around the country to boost his numbers and/or organize in other states.
I know when Joe Lieberman did that in Connecticut, it didn't go over very well. It got to the point where local reporters made sure they asked where people were from before they bothered getting reactions.
They were called rent-a-thugs
March 5, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhh, workerbee, the Clinton campaign is doing the same thing:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/voltravel/?sc=3
March 6, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
She won because she gets to be X, say not-X, have everyone buy it, and STILL be the one we are told is victimized by the media. I don't even have a problem with it; she's the one who has to look herself in the mirror.
March 5, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a 56 y.o. white woman, so I guess that places me squarely in the Hillary demographic. I voted Obama.
I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination through popular vote and delegate count. I will not vote for her if this nomination is awarded by super delegates.
Since first being eligible to vote, I have never failed to do so. That includes even the most local school committee campaign. But if Hillary takes this nomination by super delegates, I will feel as disenfranchised as I did in 2000 when the SCOTUS took the decision making away from the electorate.
March 5, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
One meme circulating in the MSM (particularly the NY Times) ought to be deep-sixed: the notion that "Obama can't win big swing states and therefore will be a weak nominee". Primaries are about which candidate is preferred within the party; there's been zero information to suggest that, if Obama is the nominee, disgruntled Clinton supporters in swing states will go for McCain. Or, for that matter, vice versa. My gut feeling, I think supported by polling, is that people who vote in the Democratic primaries (other than deliberate spoiler-voters egged on by Limbaugh and his ilk) will vote for the Democratic nominee, whether Clinton or Obama.
Peace,
Paul
March 5, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, voting is an emotional thing. I’m not so much interested in the imposed frames of explanations such as NAFTA, immigration, economy, healthcare, education etc., because in those things, both candidates are quite similar with minor but important differences. It’s the other ones, memes which won't go away – like not Muslim “as far as I know”, 3:00am phone calls, Goolsbee/Canada/NAFTA – the stinky, decaying things emanating out of the kitchen sink that I find to be more relevant. Because all of them, IMHO, aim to explain the emotional aspects of voting. Furthermore, I’m not willing to cede that she “won” last night.
I have to say that I was riveted last night, as I have been through out this campaign/primary season. I feel that for many decades we have become conditioned to vote our fears. Indeed, we are wedded to our fears. We let our fears decide who is “stronger” and who is “weaker”. We let our fears decide what level of “change” we want and what’s too far and who is too “other”. While Obama invites us to vote our hopes, Clinton, this cycle, has honed her fear based campaign. Maybe some regions and States are more mired in fear born of insecurity and bigotry.
I see that many responders have advocated that Obama strike and hard and make a case for his ability to fight back and get grimy and tough. Have you not been paying attention? He’s quite capable of pivoting and counterpunching. He does that quite well. He’s also said he will not traffic in fear. He’s not hung up on that stupid duality of “weak” and “strong”. He’s advocating and counting on that we get beyond that. For a people so mired in notions of “weak” and “tough” why cannot we vote with courage? That, for me, is the central question.
The other thing I find fascinating is the women’s vote. As a woman and a voter, Hillary began to make me uncomfortable in NH. Not because she cried. That I felt and understood. It was what she said right after she cried. It was so polarizing. She lost me completely in SC. I know some people think that the racism thing originated from Obama. As far as I’m concerned, they can screw themselves to the wall. I know different. Down here on the ground many people are looking at people like Rep. Tubbs Jones as she follows her candidate from county to county, appearing to support the Clinton assesment that Obama is nothing but a suite with a speech and believe me, we are not fooled by what we are seeing and hearing. Also, IMHO, Sen. Obama has run the more inclusive, “female” campaign. Not Sen. Clinton.
Lastly, Sen. Clinton was way ahead in TX and OH. Sen. Obama caught up with her and in spite of the kitchen sink, she wins only a few delegates. How is this a “win”?
March 5, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think if most Democrats voted their hopes that candidates like Kucinich, Dodd, and Edwards would still be in the race? At the risk of offending the sensibilities of Obama supporters, I think it can be fairly said that Obama is asking people to hope their hopes but vote for Democratic corporate centrism with a new face representing it.
March 5, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Voters have come to their senses and have gotten over the "rock star" candidate and are moving back to the proven leader who will get the job done. Hillary is ahead in the popular vote, 13,287,962 to 13,259,661 for O.
March 5, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure where you get your numbers, but according to realclearpolitics Hillary's only ahead if you include MI.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
March 5, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhh dancing bear.
It's a matter of degree. Obama floods states with out of state supporters, and I have no doubt that will get picked up by the press, soon.
Also there is the rather large matter of the character of that support.
I think it's pretty clear how that is going to play out.
March 6, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone is looking for reasons other than the real ones that the statistics show clearly. Clinton is favored by the older crowd, particularly older women, that are looking back to better times. Obama is the favorite of the young and forwarding looking crowd that views racism, sexism, ageism, and nostalgia as retrograde.
If you look at the composition of the states, when they reflect retro attitudes, Clinton wins, otherwise Obama wins. There are exceptions because in the early primaries Obama was considered unelectable. If the primaries in places like California and Nevada were held now, Obama would win.
Experience is a non-issue at this point. Electability is a non-issue now. There may still be some racism and sexism in play among the retro crowd.
March 5, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
i believe the republicans have been influencing our primary all along. they have stated they were voting for OBAMA because they thought he was the weaker candidate. if rush can make the 80% who have previously supported OBAMA switch sides to clinton that easily why do you think he lost last night. these same 80% will be voting for macain in the general election. don't be fooled to think republicans are NOT voting...they are but their numbers are boosting democratic turnout that WON’T be there in the general election. i still believe HILLARY has the majority of REAL democrats or people who really do plan to vote for a DEMOCRATIC nominee this fall.
Stop-Clinton movement takes root
“Obamacans,” as the campaign likes to call its Republican supporters, offer a variety of reasons for turning out for Obama, not the least of them a lack of interest in the Republican primary now that Sen. John McCain of Arizona has all but wrapped up his party’s nomination. Others say they genuinely think Obama is the best candidate for change.
But a significant proportion say they are temporarily backing Obama for strategic reasons. They plan to vote Republican in November, but for now, their goal is to try to make sure Clinton cannot win.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23394070/
March 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, it makes perfect sense that although Republicans were fully engaged in their own battles right up through Super Tuesday they were then part of a secret conspiracy to get Obama nominated, whereas suddenly now that McCain has sewn up the Republican nomination Rush is publicly sending them over to Hillary.
March 5, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Katewyn wrote:
PS "You should read Obama's memoir, Dreams From My Father, for some deeper insight into why he's running. As Axelrod says, this guy embodies what he talks about.He IS what he SAYS.
I admit that I haven't read either of Obama's books: there are so many others that I want to read. But I still am sticking to my guns on my assessment of Obama's character.
As for Axelrod, I have seen him on TV, and he is a real sleaze.
March 5, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's keep in mind that Obama closed a, what, 20 point gap in both states? Sure he lost the momentum towards the end that could have wrapped things up for him, but only after the Hillary camp got desperate and went negative, playing into people's ignorant fears - the same ones the republicans have based their politics on for at least the past 8 years. One of the worst things about that is that it's hard to combat it without getting dirty yourself, something Obama's been able to avoid up til now.
March 5, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why Sen. Clinton carried all except the most highly urbanized of Texas' 261 counties?
Obama is from Venus; Clinton is from Mars.
March 5, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps we're witnessing the struggle between Dem voters who secretly hate their mothers vs Dem voters who are secretly racist.
The brilliance of the ringing phone ad is that deep in the lizard brain of every mother, there exists one truth: I care about the children more than he does
And the endless ringing? “My teenager in trouble? My husband in an accident? My mother taken to the hospital? The babysitter not answering when I’m calling home?”
What that ad tapped into is that fundamentally, we as women know we are alone. We are always there for “them,” but nobody is there for us.
Most women live right next door to dread, and when “Dread” shows up at the front door (read Conservatives Without Conscience) “Ability to Think Clearly” leaves by the back.
That's why Hillary won.
March 5, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am an old woman in Ohio. Here's what I read about myself today just in this thread:
Good thing I'm not a sensitive person.
And by the way, I voted for Obama yesterday, for various reasons. But I'm getting really, really sick of the Kewl Kidz trashing everyone who didn't.
Actually, people probably voted for Clinton here because they thought she'd be a better president for them. She's smart, tough, hard-working, and good on details. She's not glamorous, silver-tongued, or cool -- and, as those posters above make gratingly clear, neither are we. Working people, poor people, blue-collar people, retired people, old people -- we're definitely not very cool.
But we vote. Dammit, we do show up and vote.
Democracy's a real pain, ain't it? Some of you had better stop whining and learn to deal with it.
March 5, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, HLee.
Yours was a really great comment. Just thought I'd say that.
"Actually, people probably voted for Clinton here because they thought she'd be a better president for them."
Damn right. It's funny that we always try to explain away votes as though they weren't cast by sentient beings with a concern for their country's future. It's too bad, because that kind of thinking gives campaigns and personalities and media spin much more power than they deserve--or have.
Anyway, good to know you voted for Obama. Cuz then I wouldn't be so nice to you. : )
March 5, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
HLee,
Thanks for your posting your comment.
March 6, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree with your analysis. Only thing I would say is that you don't want to argue on the basis of "life is not fair" even though that is probably true (at least not as fair as it should be).
Political campaigns are not fair and that must be accepted.
Can you imagine a campaign in which Obama says things like "Hillary is right, I don't have a lot of experience on the national and international scene? But I'm willing to learn". That would be accurate but a foolish thing to say. That's politics
March 5, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that the Dems are in a great position.
We have two excellent candidates - one who is for change (Obama) and one who can fight the fight (Clinton). I would be happy with either candidate and I will vote for whichever is the People's/party's choice.
I do not feel this is a weakness on the Dems' part - I feel this is our strength.
Rather than being embarrassed about our inability to settle on one candidate, I believe the Dems should be shouting from the highest mountain - "You have a choice"!!!!!
And whomever the PEOPLE chose, the People WIN. Don't be ashamed of this -- be proud and be loud about giving the American People a choice!
It's either a choice of Dems or have McCain shoved down your throats.
I am fully confident the American people will respond to the Dem choice.....whomever he or she will be.
March 5, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the drama about the Destruction of the Party is over the top.
We can win, whoever is the candidate, if we work together to do it. The Party needs activists and members that will w-o-r-k.
I'll vote for Barack Obama if he wins the nomination. I'll vote for Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination.
And, I'll work to keep the Democratic Party at the top of the game.
Thanks.
mp
March 5, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM is fundamentally a testosterone-driven site (or collection of sites). Women, and women's issues, are not a driving concern here. I believe the distaste for women in leadership roles drives much of the Obama-bot syndrome. There are many signs. The constant references to "billary;" the inability and unwillingness to view her separately from her husband; contrasting "Hillary" (first name) to "Obama" (last name). Her actual record, as a legislator, and as a citizen, are of no interest; and most Obama-bots know nothing about her beyond her vote "on Iraq" -- and don't want to know. (And, they have the facts wrong, to boot.) She would never be acceptable, even had she never married Bill Clinton. She's a woman.
In February, when Obamamania was at a crescendo, I commented here that Obama's support is a mile wide and in inch deep. The events of the past few days are demonstrating the accuracy of that comment. Actual voters are not whingeing conspiracy theorists flogging the blogs with dramatic apocalyptic tales of the destruction of the Democratic Party if Obama doesn't win the nomination.
Most of the people who are pushing the Obama "movement" at the ground level are one-off thrill-seekers, who want to be able to say they voted for "the first Black President," and will vanish like smoke in the wind at the end of the process. Although the bylined writers will not admit it, these people are bad for the party and bad for the country. They could stampede us into selecting and electing the weakest of the candidates on offer. Long after they've gone back to their Bud Lite and ESPN, we'll be stuck with the legacy of their actions.
In the blogosphere, the comment columns are filled with screeching bots who fancy themselves, by virtue of their domination of this medium, as "America" in 3D. They just got a wakeup call from the front desk. They aren't. If Barack Obama wants to claim the leadership position, he's going to have to fight for it. There will be no "anointed" candidate this year.
When Hillary Clinton lost her front runner status, she fought back. She is focussed and goal-driven. Of course, to the Obama-bot, for a woman to fight "as hard as a man" is just wrong. She must be "evil." To me, knowing something about her activities and record for the past 30 years, it is of a piece with her history. I find her resilience and toughness admirable.
I'm glad she won yesterday. Team Obama can spin it until the cows jump over the moon. They just got their heads delivered on platters. Every prediction made by them and on their behalf by the "pundits" was wrong. Now, we'll see what they really are made of.
That is as it should be.
Thanks.
mp
March 5, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I believe the distaste for women in leadership roles drives much of the Obama-bot syndrome."
What a load of crap. I've voted for many women.
"There are many signs. The constant references to "billary;" the inability and unwillingness to view her separately from her husband; contrasting "Hillary" (first name) to "Obama" (last name)."
Her own campaign doesn't separate her from her husband (except when convenient, as with NAFTA). Listen to the interviews with Hispanic supporters (and others) saying that they are voting for her because they always like Bill. The first name thing is to distinguish between Bill and Hillary; HER CAMPAIGN WEBSITE SAYS "HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT"!!:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/home/?sc=2369
"most Obama-bots know nothing about her beyond her vote "on Iraq" -- and don't want to know."
Oh, please. Hillary has been a prominent public figure since 1992; we know plenty about her. On the other hand, I constantly see posts here fro Clinton supporters claiming that Obama has no record at all, and no proposals on issues, although that information is easily accessible.
"Team Obama can spin it until the cows jump over the moon...Every prediction made by them and on their behalf by the "pundits" was wrong."
Really? Did Obama, or Plouffe, or Axelrod say they expected to win OH and TX? Please provide a link.
March 6, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the hat tip, jfisher. Good to know you won't have to be mean to me. :-)
I voted for Obama because he's black. His candidacy is a huge deal for black people in this country. It's good to have them politically involved for once, instead of taken for granted by the Democratic party. And I think the racial divide in this country is uglier than the divide between men and women. I think racism at this point is more critical an issue than sexism.
I agree with clueless that we have two fine candidates. I will be glad to vote for either one. But I think we need Obama a little more than we need Hillary right now.
March 5, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting because now that Hillary will be in the campaign until the finish, we know both camps will resort to negative attacks; it's the only option left at this point.
Consequently, as the divisiveness grows between Clinton and Obama, John McCain will gradually come to be seen as "the safe candidate."
And that is not such a bad thing.
I don't know what shocks me more: McCain's improbable rise to the GOP nomination, or failure the of Democrats yet again.
In the weeks leading up to the Iowa Caucuses, it was the Democrats who were adamantly declaring that their party would be many faces but one voice. Meanwhile, the GOP appeared to be in complete disarray; half the party sticking to President Bush's leadership while the other half scurried as far away as possible. Indeed, it appeared as if either Mitt Romney or Rudolph Giuliani would likely steal the nomination. John McCain was given scarcely more chance than Mike Huckabee just a handful of weeks ago.
And yet here we are again. The Democrats are embroiled in a bitter civil war that could very realistically result in John McCain's presidential victory.
To be clear, I do NOT believe that behind closed doors the GOP is as comprehensively enthusiastic and gung-ho about John McCain as they appear to be on the outside. How could they be? Hellen Keller could at once sense the many flaws of John McCain. Despite this, however, the GOP has miraculously managed to present a magnificently unified front in the face of great odds.
The problem for the Democrats is two-fold. One, the party is split internally. There is a bloc of Democrats who will simply never vote for Barak Obama even in a general election. Similarly, there is a bloc of Dems who will never vote for Hillary Clinton; even if she gets the nomination. That bolsters McCain. To have any chance in November, the Democrats have all of their people voting for their candidate. At this juncture that seems to be an impossiblity.
McCain,therefore, has a better than 50/50 shot at the White House.
March 6, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Gettysburg,
Very interesting point. But I would also turn it around on you and say we seem to be going through cycles like disposable diapers. McCain was dead and out of the race how long ago?
I think so far it's only a civil war in the blogosphere, really I do. (One anecdotal is right above, the comment by HLee above @ 4:05pm, but it's in the polls, too.) It may become one in brick-and-mortar depending upon how the negative attacks Hillary v. Obama, Obama v. Clinton are handled from now on. We don't even know yet how Obama will operate with this kind of thing. There are many months, we may see a few more cycles of all of this. There are far too many variables and too much time involved. (Like: Remember a guy called Senator Edwards? He's got 26 delegates, still not released.) Your conclusion right now may only end up being a fleeting moment everyone forgets and you will have to argue about it that it even happened on some future blog thread. I remember your commenting history here, and believe you know how that is. :-)
Hey, I am so unsure of what will happen that I would not take a bet right now that they won't end up running mates.
Ellen's right to say this was "the bloom is off the rose," but now we prune it off, get to see both rose bushes pushing out new buds, haven't any idea what they are going to look like.
March 6, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
artapraiser writes: "Hey, I am so unsure of what will happen that I would not take a bet right now that they won't end up running mates."
Hey, in an undisciplined moment, I actually did.
March 6, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Hillary voters in Ohio are really old Catholic women, I rather doubt they're reading the insightful essays on DailyKos and Huffpost; they are, however, paying attention to smear tactics and 3AM scare ads.
And by the way, I'm an old Catholic woman myself, but I read too much to trust HRC.
March 6, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop lying!
Everybody knows who Obama worships: OBAMA!
I expect that this will resonate with Obama supporters exactly how their contintualy snark has resonated with women generally and Hillary supporters of either gender.
March 7, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
artappraiser:
Obama said Saturday that he had no interesting sharing a ticket with Clinton. I find it interesting (and a bit desperate) that Hillary even brought up such a possibility. How generous of her to extend such a generous offer to Obama, especially when he leads the contest and will more than likely win the nomination. That would be like being down 3 games to 1 in the World Series and offering your opponent a split championship if they'll only agree.
It certainly doesn't appear that Obama needs Hillary Clinton. I'm not exactly sure where his campaign is getting all of its money, but it seems a bit suspicious considering his prime demographic is the 30 and under set; the ones with the least amount of money or influence in society. I don't believe that he can so easily outgain Hillary Clinton (whose supporters are generally older and wealthier) with $25 internet contributions from his college-level supporters.
So where is his money coming from?
I wouldn't say Saudi Arabia, but his rise from nothing to almost president is virtually unprecedented in American politics when taking his race into account. It almost seems as if someone or something is propping him up.
In which case I'll concede that McCain has no chance anyway.
March 9, 2008 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink