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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because her boneheaded comment about McCain bringing a lifetime of experience to the White House happened too late to have an effect against her.
Isn't that a reason she didn't not win, not a reason she won? (I'm semi-serious about this)
Unfortunately, it's a reason Obama didn't not lose ;)
I think I see what you didn't not mean.
That's not what she said but whatever.
I think it's immaterial to this discussion, but that is in fact what she said:
As an aside, doesn't EVERYONE bring a lifetime of experience to whatever they do? (Or perhaps nobody does?)
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?
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.
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.
Can you explain what you mean?
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.
I think it's because Obama is a secret Muslim and now everyone knows it.
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.
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.
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
Because the bloom is off the rose.
Because the bloom is off the rose.
That's the best explanation I've read yet.
"Because the bloom is off the rose."
Yep.
And the thorns are still on the stem. Ouch.
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.
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
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.
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.
It was said sarcastically.
Lighten up.
Thank you.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
"Nothing happened."
Obama lost.
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.
She will, though. Count on it.
If hypocrisy were a felony, Wolfson et al would be in jail.
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!
Rush Limbaugh. Remember Howard Stern and Sunjia?
Once again, the Democrats are about to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory.
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.
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.
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.
Two recommended reader threads are devoted to whether the Clinton campaign "darkened" Obamas skin color.
Talk about sleaze.
You're soaking in it.
Thanks, I always agree with someone who agrees with me.
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.
He was joking...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Take a look at the Texas totals for the primary vote and the caucuses. That's what a stolen election looks like.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Oh he'll change. The tax return issue is going to show up.
(PS, for any who follow my link: His atrocious spelling is mostly intentional. That's alt.slack for you.)
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.
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.
ever hear of sarcasm?
Sarcasm? What's that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ooops...above I ment "preview of the general election", not "review".
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
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.
Right on, re: Gore and Kerry.
The big state strategy will eventually doom the party because it decimates red state Democrats.
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...
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.
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.
NAFTA in Ohio.
Limbaugh inspired Republican cross-overs in Texas.
Catholic mistrust of Obama in RI?
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....
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.
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.
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.
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 --
I think it was the Saturday Night Live sketch and the whining at the press coverage.
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.
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)?
She won because she's been ahead in both of those states all along. Big whoop.
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.
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.
Here is what is happening.
The voters are slowly figuring out that Obama's bubble is leaking hot air.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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'.
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?
It was a joke.
The great thing about the new TPM Cafe is that no one has a sense of humor.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
I agree that lying in public was not the best way for his campaign to handle it.
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.
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.
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.
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