Saturday, May 10th, 2008

I’ll Be There When The Last Teardrop Falls

The final shoe has dropped, the final nail is in the coffin: Barack Obama now leads in superdelegates, too.

ABC News’ Karen Travers Reports: For the first time this campaign season, Barack Obama has surpassed Hillary Clinton’s support among superdelegates, according to the ABC News delegate estimate. 

Sen. Obama, D-Ill., picked up two superdelegates this morning giving him a new metric to tout in addition to his current commanding leads in pledged delegates, popular votes, states won, and money raised.

Rep. Donald Payne, D-N.J., switched his endorsement from Clinton to Obama and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., endorsed Obama. DeFazio was previously uncommitted.

With these endorsements, Obama has the support of 267 superdelegates and Clinton has 265 superdelegates.

And yet, there remain a few hardy souls who will not concede that Clinton has no chance, among them the highly-respected Jay Cost:

Elite opinion on the Democratic race has congealed around the idea that it is over. Clinton has no chance whatsoever to win the nomination now. There is a minority of analysts out there - maybe 5%, maybe even less - who see her path to the nomination as much narrower than it was four days ago, but who still see a path.

I’m with the minority on this one. I think she is nearly finished, but not quite yet.

…Two things are holding me back: West Virginia and Kentucky.

The conventional wisdom has it that Clinton did herself major damage Tuesday night by getting blown out in North Carolina. I completely agree. This hurt her with the pledged delegate count. Much more important, I think, is that it hurt her with the popular vote count, which she must win to press an argument with the superdelegates.

However, it is possible that she could counter Tuesday’s blowout with two big blowouts of her own in the next two weeks. This could undo most of the damage done by her big loss in North Carolina, and put her back on track. 

Color me unconvinced - back on track for what?  She now is losing by every meaningful metric…

1 Comment » - Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 News, Democratic Candidates by Mark

---

Thursday, May 8th, 2008

Hillary For Veep?

More and more chatter is flying around concerning the possibility of an Obama/Clinton ticket - chatter that is being pushed hard by Clinton insiders.  I have always assumed Hillary wouldn’t want - and Obama wouldn’t offer - the slot of Vice President.  It’s becoming increasingly clear, however, that if the alternative is to return to the Senate, Hillary would prefer the Vice President’s quarters to Capitol Hill.

Would Obama offer her the slot?  Maybe:

…Obama, in an interview with NBC News, refused to rule out the prospect. “There’s no doubt that she’s qualified to be vice-president; there’s no doubt she’s qualified to be president,” he said.

In an interview with CNN , he said he had not yet wrapped up the Democratic nomination, but when he did he would start the process of selecting a running mate. “She is tireless, she is smart. She is capable. And so obviously she’d be on anybody’s shortlist to be a potential vice-presidential candidate,” he said.

Speaking as a Republican partisan, I have to say that an Obama/Clinton ticket would probably be unbeatable (we face an uphill fight as it is).  Sure, there are many, many people who would never vote for a ticket that had Hillary on it, but most of those people wouldn’t vote for Obama anyway.  And she would gain more votes than she would lose, in all likelihood, with her proven strong appeal to Democrats (older, whiter, poorer) that Obama isn’t reaching - not to mention an already historic ticket that would become even more so (though we have had a female VP candidate already with Geraldine Ferraro).

Yes, there would be plenty of extra opportunity for mudslinging with her on the ticket, but that’s hardly the way I (or John McCain) want the Republicans to retain the White House…and the thought of Bill in the national spotlight virtually every day again?  Lord, no, say it ain’t so…

Here’s hoping the bad blood between the two is strong enough to prevent a ticket that would probably be an irresistible force…

17 Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 News, Democratic Candidates by Mark

---

Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

If Perception Is Everything In Politics…

…then Hillary Clinton has had the worst day of the campaign.  You can’t swing a cat without hitting some pundit, famous or otherwise, calling her presidential bid doomed (and you won’t find any disagreement here - it’s over).  Her chance of securing the nomination plummeted to 8.5% at Intrade after trading as high as 22% before Tuesday.  Previous big-time loser George McGovern advised her to withdraw. Tim Russert said you could put in a fork in this one: it’s done.

And still, she soldiers on? Irrationally?  I would say so, given the cost (much now coming from the Clintons’ own fortune)…but Marc Ambinder plays devil’s advocate and offers 7 reasons she should stay in:

1. Florida and Michigan. Clinton, not Obama, is identified with the cause of seating those delegations. Since FL and MI won’t decide the nomination now, Clinton has every reason to push for a negotiated settlement. It way well be that Clinton refuses to officially drop out until she is satisfied that the voices of Florida and Michigan are heard.

2. Her voters. Almost half of those voting in the Democratic primaries chose Clinton. Certain parts of her support base — older women, for example — are as fervently in her corner as Obama as college kids are in Obama’s corner. For these women, Clinton has succeeded in convincing them that her candidacy is just as historic as Obama’s. Forget about the nomination: Clinton has a much deeper political base than when she started to campaign for the presidency. She needs to tend to this base whether she continues to represent New York, becomes Senate Majority Leader, becomes the vice presidential nominee, or runs in 2012.

3. Embarrassment. If she drops out tomorrow and winds up winning in West Virginia and Kentucky, Obama will be mightily embarrassed. Having her in the race gives him an excuse for losing those two states. (I ran this by an Obama adviser who said, “We’ll take our chances.”)

4. The Ask. Does Clinton want to be Obama’s vice president? Who knows? But does Clinton want to be asked whether she wants to be his vice president and this be in a position to decline it? Surely. The more Obama is reminded that Clinton cannot not be dispensed with, the more pressure he will feel to at least solicit her views on the subject of the vice presidency.

You’ll have to click through to read the other three…

4 Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 News, Democratic Candidates by Mark

---

Tuesday, May 6th, 2008

Obama Did What He Had To Do

Computer issues prevent more than a brief post, but, though Indiana still looks like it will go Clinton by a very small margin, Obama has won North Carolina, big.  And that’s really all he needed.

I wavered a bit on Obama, as he was definitely reeling, but I’m back up to 99.9% certainty: the nomination is his…

17 Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 News, Democratic Candidates by Mark

---

Monday, May 5th, 2008

Another Big Day For The Democrats Approaches…

…and I’m predicting Indiana will go Clinton and North Carolina - well, it’s a toss-up. Obama SHOULD win, but everything’s coming up roses for Clinton lately, so I’m not giving North Carolina to either candidate yet.

On the positive side for Obama, he’s been doing quite well with superdelegates as of late, and I predict that if he can secure North Carolina, he will pick up quite a few more public commitments. A sign of Hillary’s increasing awareness that the math is just not going to work out in her favor is the fact that her campaign staff is in overdrive promoting what the HuffPost political editor called a secret Clinton ‘nuclear option’ that her staff in fact puts forth in the broad light of day, no secrets neccesary: seating Michigan and Florida.

The Huffington Post describes a “secret” plan that the Clinton Campaign has to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations. There is no secret plan. In fact, this story misrepresents the process laid out in the DNC rules for resolving the questions surrounding the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations.

The Clinton campaign has been vocal in stating that the votes of 2.5 million people must be respected. Hardly a day goes by when a Clinton official doesn’t publicly declare that the votes of Michigan and Florida count and that the delegations from those states should be seated.

DNC members from Michigan and Florida have filed challenges with the DNC to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. The process being followed to adjudicate these challenges is completely consistent with the DNC rules. The Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) is the DNC body charged with dealing with these challenges until the 56th day before the convention, and its process is public and transparent.

The membership of the RBC does not - in large part - turn over. A former Secretary of Labor, and the grandson of FDR who is a long time party activist and has been a co-chair of the committee for several election cycles chair it. Other members include a former chair of the party, Al Gore’s Campaign Manager (who is a former co-chair of the RBC as well), and an executive board member of the NAACP. Although the RBC is comprised of people who support both candidates, these people take their roles as party activits seriously.

The DNC process will decide the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegations. It is an open and transparent process — unlike the backroom deals proposed by the Obama campaign that would disenfranchise the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in Florida and Michigan.

Ah, the self-righteousness of political candidates! It all sounds great…BUT:

• the voters of Michigan and Florida, as I have stated repeatedly, were disenfranchised by the stupidity of their own elected officials, who knew the consequences if they moved up their primaries and did so anyway, and not by the Obama campaign;
• Obama was not EVEN ON THE BALLOT in Michigan; and
• I continue to maintain that if Clinton wins the campaign through shenanigans at the convention, there will be a catastrophic reaction from young Democrats and African-Americans.

Tom Daschle (an interested observer, in that he was one of the main early Obama supporters, so take this with a grain of salt), had this to say:

The former South Dakota senator said he was amazed at the number of undecided superdelegates that have called him in the last 24 hours saying that it would be an “absolute disaster.”

Asked if the superdelegates would be “ticked” if the nuclear option were implemented he replied, “If we overturn what has happened in all these elections all over the country and do something like that, ticked is mild compared to the feeling I am getting from reports all over the country today.”

It’s this backdrop that makes Indiana and North Carolina so crucial if either candidate can manage a win in BOTH states. To quote Larry Sabato:

“…[I]f either candidate carries both these primaries, it will be an earthquake for the Democratic party,” he said. “If it is Obama, it should confirm him as the nominee. If it’s Clinton, it will shake up the superdelegates’ support.”

The road goes on forever and the party never ends…

8 Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidates, Election 2008 by Mark

---

Saturday, May 3rd, 2008

One Million Served

Some time around 9:00 p.m. Central tonight, May 3, 2008, my Sitemeter is going over the 1,000,000 visitor mark. These meters are an inexact science, but that does give me some gratification. There are sites out there that get hundreds of thousands of visits per day, so I definitely don’t have the big head about this, but I do appreciate your continued support, particularly as I blog a lot less these days than I did in the beginning.

I don’t know what the future of this blog holds after November, though I have a few ideas…but there will be time enough for that later. For now, I just say thanks for getting me into the seven-figure league…

13 Comments » - Posted in Navel-Gazing by Mark

---

Saturday, May 3rd, 2008

Noah: No Chance For Hillary

Timothy Noah says Hillary Clinton supporters are living in the land of make-believe:

Here’s a rule I would like every political reporter, campaign official, TV talking head, and politician in the United States to follow. Go ahead and say, if you like, that Hillary Clinton retains a serious chance of winning the Democratic nomination. If you say this, however, you must describe a set of circumstances whereby this could happen. Try not to make it sound like a fairy tale.

Yes, Obama has dropped a few points in national polls, and Clinton has picked up a few points, putting her in the lead. The Gallup Tracking Poll had it 49-45 for Clinton on April 30, compared to 50-42 for Obama on April 15. That isn’t surprising in a week when Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, elaborated on his most controversial statements at the National Press Club (click here for the video), prompting Obama to distance himself more emphatically (”I will talk to him perhaps some day in the future. … Inexcusable. … I do not see that relationship being the same after this”) than he had earlier in a stirring speech on race.

The only number that matters, however, is 2,025, which is how many delegates a candidate will need to secure the nomination. Obama has 1,488 primary delegates to Clinton’s 1,334, according to the Associated Press delegate tracker. Add in superdelegates and Obama has 1,736 to Clinton’s 1,602. Obama needs 289 more delegates to win the nomination. Hillary needs 423. There are three ways to win these additional delegates:

1. In the nine Democratic primaries and caucuses that remain, in which about 400 delegates are at stake
2. By winning over still-undecided superdelegates, of whom about 290 remain
3. By persuading the necessary number of superdelegates and/or primary delegates among the 1,736 pledged to Obama to change their allegiances. The former will be difficult to achieve, and the latter, though permitted, will be extremely difficult to achieve

It’s numerically impossible for Hillary to get to 2,025 through the remaining primaries and caucuses. In theory, Obama could get to 2,025 that way, but to do so he’d need to capture, on average, 71 percent of the vote in every remaining contest, according to Slate’s “Delegate Calculator.” That obviously isn’t going to happen. Hence the relentless press focus on the superdelegates. They will almost certainly choose the nominee.

A great debate has taken place on how superdelegates ought to choose the nominee. Should they vote their conscience, or should they follow the popular will? We could debate that one all day. The more relevant question is: How do superdelegates choose the nominee? Answer: They tend to follow the popular will. That’s why superdelegates gravitated to Clinton when polls showed she looked like a sure thing, and then to Obama when he started outpolling her. That’s why more than one-third of the superdelegates remain uncommitted now. Believe me, it isn’t because they haven’t been paying attention, and (except for a few head cases) it isn’t because, after 23 Democratic debates, they still don’t know which candidate tickles their fancy. It’s because they’re reluctant to be out of step with the popular will as expressed through all the primaries and caucuses. The longer any given superdelegate waits to make his or her endorsement, the likelier he or she is to choose whoever ends up with a plurality of delegates. Why else wait?

It’s a good argument…what is undeniable, however, is that a growing number of Democrats, both low and high, are starting to think Obama is unelectable (we’ll leave Hillary’s electability aside for another time).  But Noah properly puts the onus back on the numbers - and when we engage in this exercise with him, only one plausible outcome for a Hillary win presents itself:  a large number of pledged Obama supporters (Noah’s #3 above) change direction over these electability concerns.

I don’t see it happening, still…but I’ll tell you this - if Obama doesn’t take North Carolina (and it’s no longer a sure thing), a considerable amount of unease is going to be felt throughout the Democratic Party.   Conversely, however, I feel confident in the following statement: if he takes North Carolina, it’s over, 100% (as opposed to the 98% confidence I currently feel that he will be the eventual nominee)…

6 Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidates, Election 2008 by Mark

---

Thursday, May 1st, 2008

The Shame Of The Ignorance Peddlers

Frequent readers know that I am an unapologetic 100% free-trader. I’ve made the case elsewhere, so here I will simply state that no movement in human history has improved the lot of so many as the development of trade, particularly in the modern democratic, capitalist sense. And yet America, a country that has benefited more than any other from its own brand of about 80% pure capitalism, is sliding into the economic dark ages.

The headline on the latest Pew poll is about slipping support for Obama, but the bombshell is buried in the fine print:

With public views of the national economy continuing to be quite negative, Americans now are taking a much more critical view of free trade agreements. Nearly half of Americans (48%) say that the World Trade Organization and free trade agreements such as NAFTA have been bad for the country; 35% say such agreements have been good for the United States. This is the first time a plurality has expressed a negative view of the impact of free trade agreements since the question was first asked a decade ago.

An increasing number of Americans also say that their personal financial situation has been hurt by free trade agreements. The proportion expressing this opinion has increased by 12 points since December 2006.

Most Americans now say that free trade agreements lead to job losses (61%) and make workers’ wages lower (56%); both percentages are up sharply from 2006. In addition, half of the public says that free trade agreements make the economy slow down, an increase of 16 points since 2006.

Appalling is the only suitable word. Free trade agreements make the economy slow down? Who is to blame for this widespread knuckleheadedness?

We can blame Americans themselves, of course, for caring more about ‘racy’ Miley Cyrus pics than educating themselves; we can blame the education system, woefully light on real economics at any level lower than college; we can blame Republicans, for not preaching their convictions more forcefully; and we can blame the Democrats.

Oh, heavens, yes, we can blame the Democrats. The ‘progressive’, populist, pander-filled view of the economy, as espoused by such intellectual heavyweights as the cornpone-spewing Jim Hightower and the 0 for 7 presidential candidate adviser Bob Shrum, has won the day for sure when we see such spectacles as Hillary Clinton groveling in front of union-heavy blue-collar states by slamming one of the signature highlights of her husband’s administration, the NAFTA Free Trade Agreement, pretending that if only NAFTA were modified, the delightful job fairy would come back and make all those $65 an hour United Auto Worker salaries return, on the back of Puff the Magic Dragon, no doubt…

Pardon me while I go see if my oven is sufficiently large for my head to fit into…

9 Comments » - Posted in Elephants, Domestic Affairs, Donkeys, Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton, Progressive Nonsense / Nutroots®, Democratic Candidates by Mark

---

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

Is Obama In Trouble?

Mathematically, no…the case for Obama’s inevitable candidacy is as strong as ever.  Perceptually, however, he is reeling, there is no doubt.  The fact that Obama was forced to hold a press conference once again denouncing the paranoid ravings of his former pastor is a telling indicator of how much the issue has hurt him (largely unfairly, in my view).

Hillary was already on a bit of a spurt following her big Pennsylvania win, and the latest Wright controversy has led to a doubling of her probability of gaining the nomination among the traders at Intrade (thought she still trails mightily, 21% to Obama’s 76%).  Slate’s Hillary Deathwatch is a little less charitable, with Hillary holding a mere 12.6% chance of getting the nod.

Other indicators: a new Fox News poll shows that, in a significant reversal, 10% more Democrats (48% to 38%) now think Hillary is more likely to beat John McCain in November, and at least one Democrat in Mississippi is treating allegations of an Obama endorsement as an attack(!).

And yet, there’s that pesky math - and I won’t bore you again with my theory of why Obama simply can’t be denied the nomination by the Democratic Party without massive internal damage.  He’s still the man to beat, but he really needs to turn the page.  An Indiana win would be massive, but at the least, he has to win North Carolina convincingly…

12 Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidates, Election 2008 by Mark

---

Monday, April 28th, 2008

With Wright, It’s All Wrong

God knows why (no pun intended) the Reverend Wright chose just now to plaster his mug all over the tube, but for Obama, the timing couldn’t be worse.  Now, I’m not one of those who faults Obama for the things his former pastor said - I’m satisfied with his moves to distance himself from the more inflammatory statements Wright made.  But there has been a definite post-Pennsylvania bounce in the polls for Hillary, and as we have seen, not all Republicans are as hesitant as I to play the Wright card.

Wright’s ego must be tremendous, to make himself the focus again at the very worst moment for his former parishioner…

7 Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 Polls, Democratic Candidates by Mark

---

Friday, April 25th, 2008

A Nightmare Or Much Ado About Nothing?

The press and blogs are full of headlines bemoaning the continuing ‘nightmare’ facing the Democratic Party because they have a competitive race that may not be settled until the convention. Though this has hardly been the rule lately, in the past, it was quite common to not have a definitive nominee at this point in the game.

Does this mean that all the hand wringing is typically overwrought reaction from our ‘instant gratification’ society? Yes and no. It’s far from a nightmare that the Democrats have two heavyweight candidates slugging it out (though it’s got to be nightmarish for Obama and his advisers that Clinton won’t face up to the math). There is one group of individuals for whom the ‘nightmare’ connotation is entirely apt, however, and that’s the officials of the Democratic Party.

There is a good reason why Howard Dean and other Democratic leaders want the superdelegates to come out with their choices early - actually, two: Florida and Michigan. The one true nightmare scenario, at least if you are Howard Dean, is that the race ends up close enough that Florida and Michigan, if seated, would tip it to Hillary.

If the superdelegates declare early and give Obama enough of an edge that Florida and Michigan don’t matter, then everyone will be magnanimous and seat the two contested slates - after all, we wouldn’t want to disenfranchise anyone, they’ll say with a smile…

But if Hillary wins out, or even wins Indiana, it will be truly ‘rock and a hard place’ time for the Democratic bigwigs. The pressure from the Clinton machine (and it is a very, very powerful machine in Democratic politics) to seat the delegations will be close to unbearable, and yet the long-term harm to the Democratic Party of overturning the primaries and caucuses and denying the top spot to Barack Obama is almost incalculable. Not only would it be seen as the ultimate betrayal by African-Americans, it would seem that way to quite a few disinterested observers (even Republican observers), as well (not to mention the press).

And for young Democrats, who overwhelmingly support Obama, and who are, after all, the (potential) future of the party, it would be greatly disillusioning and a cause for massive discontent and cynicism…and yeah, if you’re Howard Dean, that’s probably got to fit with the ‘nightmare’ tag…

6 Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Donkeys, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidates, Election 2008 by Mark

---

Thursday, April 24th, 2008

Pick The Winner The Call Center Way

Handy little graphic in today’s NY Times, if you haven’t seen it, showing what demographic breakdowns lead to Clinton or Obama victories in a decision tree format.

My question is, has anyone had the patience to go through this tree for all the counties in Indiana?  A shiny new dime to the first to meet the challenge!…

No Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidates, Election 2008 by Mark

---

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008

How To Lose An Election (By An Acknowledged Expert)

The Democrats have pretty much settled on their general election theme: a John McCain presidency would equal George W. Bush’s third term. However, I hope they will reconsider, and take the lead of noted loser George McGovern, who thinks the path to victory lies in ridiculing John McCain’s service to his country:

If I’d be allowed just one little dig at Senator McCain, since he gave me. I would say, ‘John, you were shot down early in the war and spent most of the time in prison. I flew 35 combat missions with a 10-man crew and brought them home safely every time.’

Wow…stunningly crass. Let’s turn it over to the MinuteMan:

Right. John Sidney McCain saved a fellow pilot’s life in the Forrestal accident, recovered from his own wounds, and was eventually shot down on his 23rd mission in 1967.

Sometimes I wonder if the Democrats, in a bit of electoral masochism, LIKE losing elections…

UPDATE 10:46 p.m.: Unrelated, but not worth a post on its own merits: I predicted Hillary by 9…the final margin was 9.2.  Yeah, yeah, so that and $3.50 will buy me a gallon of gas…

28 Comments » - Posted in Donkeys, John McCain, Republican Candidates, Election 2008 by Mark

---

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008

Hillary Wins Pennsylvania, Declares AP…

…but that’s no surprise. How big will the margin be? I predicted 9 points yesterday, but it may end up closer than that. If so, I consider that a victory for Obama, though Hillary will, I suspect, disagree…

UPDATE 8:41 p.m.: There was one candidate today who chose not to pander to economic fears in the Rust Belt - unfortunately for the Democrats, it was John McCain in Ohio:

John McCain came to the Rust Belt on Tuesday to promote worker re-training for the new economy and to denounce “the siren song” of protectionism.

“The answer is education and training,” McCain said in front of a rusted, empty steel-fabricating factory here.

…A man who identified himself as a former AFL-CIO official challenged McCain over the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada.

McCain said that, violations aside, the problem is not free trade, but rather “our inability to adjust to a new world economy.” He said the future does not belong to the “old industries,” but rather “the information technology revolution.”

Tying the area’s struggles to his own early struggles in this presidential race, McCain said, “Sometimes you get a second chance and opportunity turns back your way. And when it does, we are stronger and readier because of all that we had to overcome.”

UPDATE 10:16 p.m.: Well, with 87% of the vote in, Hillary has opened it up to 10%. I’ll wait for the final margin, but that’s a pretty big win. Obama needs to put out the fires of doubt that Hillary’s supporters are sowing and finish strong, with wins in both North Carolina and Indiana, because he’s been limping for a while now, and even though mathematically, he’s a shoe-in, his poor performances of late have the doubters coming back out of the woodwork…

UPDATE 10:20 p.m.: Marc Ambinder puts it well, as usual, in explaining why this latest showing is so disconcerting for Obama supporters:

The bottom line for tonight: both fields of spin have within them a few grains of truth. It’s still likely that Obama wins the nomination, and it’s true that his pledged delegate lead will still be in excess of 150 when tonight ends; it’s true that Clinton will have 158 fewer delegates to play with; that Obama has a strong chance to win in Indiana and North Carolina; that the superdelegates may well consider the cost of a prolonged contest as well as their own feelings about electability — all this is true.

But it’s also true that were Obama an organic frontrunner, he ought to a win a state like Pennsylvania unless he fully embraces the racial and geographic determinism that his campaign has run against since for fifteen months. He’s outspent Clinton by at least six million dollars; Clinton has higher negatives across the board; he’s visited the state nearly as many times as she has; his press coverage is better than hers; he has well more than her 5,000 volunteers on the ground.

As Jake-o writes:

But what’s so crazy about the idea that the Democratic frontrunner — flush with cash and outspending Clinton 3-to-1, running against a candidate with such high unfavorable ratings — should be able to win a blue state primary?

The answer, of course, is that Clinton is playing the economic fear card, and that runs well among traditional Democratic constituencies (read seniors, unions, and poor folk)…but the fact that these ARE Democratic demographic groups that have pretty solidly rejected Obama is Hillary’s strongest argument to the superdelegates (in other words, the pander has worked well)…

28 Comments » - Posted in John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 News, Republican Candidates, Democratic Candidates by Mark

---

Monday, April 21st, 2008

You May Never See Again…

…so much ink and airtime and computer-screen space taken up by a less meaningful event than tomorrow’s Pennsylvania primary. If I haven’t had much to say, that’s because there isn’t much to say. If Hillary wins by 20, it’s as meaningless as if Obama wins by 10. The Democratic nominee is Barack Obama. That’s all.

If you have any doubts, play around with this tool for a while…

UPDATE 11:35 p.m.: Actually (yikes, I can’t believe I’m saying this), Chris Bowers of Open Left has a pretty good analysis of why the campaign continues even though the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I had thought that perhaps the “bitter” controversy would change the underlying dynamics, but it appears to have limited long-term impact (it caused quite a frenzy, but most of the frenzy after the first couple of days was whipped up by Clinton supporters). My prediction is that Clinton wins by 9…enough for her to brag mightily, and she’ll keep going, but not the crushing defeat for Obama that might give the superdelegates pause.

Sometime soon, I’ve got some words to say about why Howard Dean is in such a hurry for the superdelegates to commit…

No Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidates, Election 2008 by Mark

---

Sunday, April 20th, 2008

Gallup Daily Tracking Shows Some “Bitter” Aftertaste

After going up by double-figures over rival Hillary Clinton nationally in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, Barack Obama saw his lead completely evaporate in a somewhat-delayed reaction to the “bitter” controversy (or perhaps it was a poor debate performance), though he has pulled back slightly today:

The peeling away of national Democratic support for Barack Obama seen this past week may have run its course. After trailing Hillary Clinton by one percentage point in Saturday’s Gallup Poll Daily tracking report, Obama now leads Clinton by two points, 47% to 45%.

Today’s results are based on Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted Thursday through Saturday, April 17-19, 2008.

Obama’s largest lead to date in the Democratic nomination race came less than a week ago when he led Clinton by 11 points, 51% to 40%. However, Obama’s support began to erode slightly even before the highly publicized April 16 Democratic debate in Philadelphia, and fell more significantly in the two days immediately after it. His advantage whittled away to a 1-point deficit in April 16-18 tracking, the first time since mid-March that Clinton’s share of the vote exceeded Obama’s, albeit by a statistically insignificant margin.

Other polls confirm a near-certain victory for Clinton in Pennsylvania (and it won’t even be close, folks - remember Ohio), but I still maintain it’s all for naught, as the fundamental fact in favor of the Obama candidacy remains (the Democratic Party simply cannot afford to overturn the popular vote and pledged delegate leader when such leader is the first African-American to not only have a chance to lead a major party ticket but take the presidency)….

2 Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 Polls, Democratic Candidates by Mark

---

Friday, April 18th, 2008

Shocking Headline of the Day

From the Wall Street Journal:

Clinton’s Goal: Win Big in Pennsylvania, Sow Doubts Over Obama

You don’t say!…

On the Springsteen front, it’s been an up and down week.  The week started, of course, with my show in Dallas, then a couple of days later, Bruce endorsed Obama.  Today, sad news: E Street Band keyboard player Danny Federici, absent from most of the tour as he battled cancer, has passed away at the age of 58.  Long may you play, Danny - you were a great one…

1 Comment » - Posted in Barack Obama, Celebrities / Pop Culture / Sports, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidates by Mark

---

Thursday, April 17th, 2008

Who Lost - Obama? Clinton?

Nope, it was apparently ABC.

James Fallows, as a (very small) sample:

I like and respect Stephanopoulos, and part of what I respect about him is the way he usually conducts his TV interviews. But I also remember dealing with him back in the early Clinton days, he in his role as campaign guy and me in my role as reporter. He understands thoroughly and in his bones what is wrong with the kind of mindless, substance-free gotcha questioning he and Gibson wasted their time on last night. I know he understands it because I’ve heard him shame journalists who were applying the same tactics to Bill Clinton back in the day. What was he thinking? What kind of pressure had been applied to him?

There is much, much more along these lines, some from professionals, a LOT from lefty bloggers, and massive amounts of discontent from the Obama camp, unsurprisingly, since he was on the defensive and apparently was less than overwhelming.

For me, the time has come to say goodbye to these so-called ‘debates’ that are really nothing more than question-and-answer sessions.  A debate, properly, fits the following definition from Webster’s: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.  The proposition(s) are introduced, and the matter(s) debated.  There is no need for a ‘moderator’, certainly not of the low caliber that we see in today’s political debates.

For example, in the classic political debates of all time, the Lincoln/Douglas debates, one man would speak for an hour, the next man had an hour and a half, and the first man returned for half an hour.  The only ‘moderation’ involved was in the introduction of the speakers.  The fact that we have shorter attention spans now is no excuse.  Let us, in the general election, for the primary season is practically over, have a series of debates on the major issues of the day.  The Democrat leads for 30 minutes, the Republican has an hour, and the Democrat returns for 30.  At the next debate, the order is reversed.

The topics come flying with little thought at all: trade, housing, financial policy, health care, Iraq, diplomacy…any of these are grand topics suitable for two hours of real discussion in prime time.  The candidates, I assure you, would rise to the occasion with much more substance than they can bring to these ‘gotcha’ forums of today, and the public would be positively riveted by the spectacle of politicians allowed to show their intelligence (or lack thereof) uninterrupted by either their opponents or any preening television personalities.

It won’t be done, of course, but it COULD be done, and we’d be much the better for it…

8 Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Celebrities / Pop Culture / Sports, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidates, Election 2008 by Mark

---

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

It’s A “Bitter” Sweet Symphony, That’s Life

More on the bitter thing (I know there’s a debate on right now, but I’m too busy to watch): it appears that Obama will weather the storm again, and I must continue to attribute his good fortune to real disgust most Americans are feeling towards the Clintons and the way they have run this campaign. Obama has maintained his sizable lead in Gallup’s Daily Tracking Poll, and the RealClearPolitics polling average in Pennsylvania has Obama down less than 7, about where he would be without the controversy.

Chris Cillizza is not too busy to watch the debate, and the bitter battle began brusquely:

Asked by Charlie Gibson whether he understood why some people would be offended by his comments — about “bitter” victims of small-town economic distress clinging to their religion and guns — Obama reiterated his past statements that he had simply misspoken and that his remarks did not reflect his personal views about small town residents.

“There is no doubt that I can see how people were offended,” he said. ” It is not the first time I have made a statement that was mangled up and it won’t be the last.”

Clinton was not ready to let the issue drop, calling Obama’s statement a “fundamental misunderstanding” of why people are religious or value their right to own a gun. “I just don’t believe that is how people live their lives,” Clinton added.

End of story? Not even close.

Obama, clearly loaded for bear on this issue coming into the debate, evoked Clinton’s 1992 comment that she would not simply stay at home and bake cookies as first lady as evidence that politicians occasionally misspeak and that it is wrong to conclude that a misstatement represents the true feelings of a politician.

“The problem we have in our politics is you take one person’s statement if it’s not properly phrased and you just beat it to death,” said Obama. “That’s what Senator Clinton has been doing over the last four days.”

The bottom line is that the fundamental dynamics that have all but given the nomination to Obama have not changed. I’d put his odds of getting the nomination at 9-1 at the moment…

UPDATE 10:14 p.m.: Marc Ambinder says Obama was awful, but the fact that Hillary was on the attack will probably rebound against her, the way this campaign has gone…

18 Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Progressive Nonsense / Nutroots®, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidates by Mark

---

Tuesday, April 15th, 2008

It DOES Have Legs

…and the Hillary campaign is making sure of it. I’m referring, of course, to the second big Obama kerfuffle of Campaign 2008, affectionately known as ‘Bittergate’. Now, it’s almost impossible to know how badly this has hurt him from all the background noise the Hillary backers are making - but it has hurt, of that I have no doubt. Here’s John Judis of The New Republic:

Some liberal commentators have downplayed the effect of Barack Obama’s fundraising speech at a San Francisco fundraiser last week. But that’s wishful thinking. Along with the revelations about Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright, his remarks in San Francisco will haunt him not only in the upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, but also in the general election against John McCain, assuming he gets the Democratic nomination.

…In the speech, Obama appeared to say that Pennsylvania voters’ opposition to gun control or abortion or immigration or free trade was pathological–a product of what Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse once called “false consciousness.” On the other hand, he implied that when he voiced opposition to an issue like free trade–Obama has consistently hammered Clinton on her support for the North American Free Trade Agreement–he was simply pandering to these voters’ displaced anxieties. He was saying to these upscale San Francisco Democrats, “I am really one of you, and I am not one of them.”

There is even a slight chance that Obama’s words in San Francisco could cost him the nomination. Obama is almost certain to have more elected delegates in June than Hillary Clinton, but if he loses Pennsylvania by 15 percentage points (which is not out of the question), that could start a media firestorm around his candidacy that could contribute to other primary defeats and to superdelegate support for Clinton. It’s not likely to happen, but after Obama spoke his mind, and, perhaps, lost small-town voters’ hearts, in San Francisco, it has suddenly become conceivable.

We’ll get back to those superdelegates, but first George Will, who also noticed the Marxist angle, in a scathing analysis:

Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism. Explaining why many working-class voters are “bitter,” he said they “cling” to guns, religion and “antipathy to people who aren’t like them” because of “frustrations.” His implication was that their primitivism, superstition and bigotry are balm for resentments they feel because of America’s grinding injustice.

…The emblematic book of the new liberalism was “The Affluent Society” by Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith. He argued that the power of advertising to manipulate the bovine public is so powerful that the law of supply and demand has been vitiated. Manufacturers can manufacture in the American herd whatever demand the manufacturers want to supply. Because the manipulable masses are easily given a “false consciousness” (another category, like religion as the “opiate” of the suffering masses, that liberalism appropriated from Marxism), four things follow:

First, the consent of the governed, when their behavior is governed by their false consciousnesses, is unimportant. Second, the public requires the supervision of a progressive elite which, somehow emancipated from false consciousness, can engineer true consciousness. Third, because consciousness is a reflection of social conditions, true consciousness is engineered by progressive social reforms. Fourth, because people in the grip of false consciousness cannot be expected to demand or even consent to such reforms, those reforms usually must be imposed, for example, by judicial fiats.

The iconic public intellectual of liberal condescension was Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, who died in 1970 but whose spirit still permeated that school when Obama matriculated there in 1981. Hofstadter pioneered the rhetorical tactic that Obama has revived with his diagnosis of working-class Democrats as victims — the indispensable category in liberal theory. The tactic is to dismiss rather than refute those with whom you disagree.

Obama’s dismissal is: Americans, especially working-class conservatives, are unable, because of their false consciousness, to deconstruct their social context and embrace the liberal program. Today that program is to elect Obama, thereby making his wife at long last proud of America.

Hofstadter dismissed conservatives as victims of character flaws and psychological disorders — a “paranoid style” of politics rooted in “status anxiety,” etc. Conservatism rose on a tide of votes cast by people irritated by the liberalism of condescension.

Obama voiced such liberalism with his “bitterness” remarks to an audience of affluent San Franciscans. Perfect.

It seems a bit far-fetched to say that Obama has thrown away either the nomination or the general election. The Wright remarks were far, far worse (though this time, the controversial remarks are from the mouth of the candidate himself). What Obama has done, however, is once again put oxygen back into the nearly-dead Clinton campaign, and he has given superdelegates a real reason to pause - can Hillary be right? Is he, in fact, unelectable? Are we looking at the next John Kerry, a candidate who manages to do the impossible and make it three straight losses for the Democrats at a time of historic dissatisfaction with the ruling Republicans? (Never mind that Hillary herself may very well be unelectable, and for better reasons).

As Chris Cillizza puts it:

For the last two months or so, there has been a story circulating just outside of the public view that there are a large number of superdelegates who are privately committed to Obama and waiting for the right moment to pledge their allegiance. Do Obama’s comments freeze these superdelegates in their current undecided pose? Or, more problematic for his campaign, do some significant number of undecided superdelegates side with Clinton — citing Obama’s comments as their prime reason for choosing the New York senator?

Let me reiterate for the record that I think the reaction at this point is overblown - but what is undeniable is that Obama is a green candidate who keeps shooting himself in the foot right at the most inopportune moments - and that plays right into Hillary Clinton’s whispering campaign to the superdelegates…

12 Comments » - Posted in Barack Obama, Progressive Nonsense / Nutroots®, Hillary Clinton, 2008 News, Democratic Candidates by Mark

---

---

---