2 weeks ago
Saturday, April 19, 2008
All Aboard
It turns out that Barack Obama's day in PA is being spent on old fashioned whistestops aboard a train, from Philadelphia to an evening rally in Harrisburg. I took that train route many times--it's incredibly beautiful, and it gets even more beautiful west of Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. They used to have historical guides ride some of those trips, and they would point out some of the rich history along the route. Of course, Obama has some other perks--like his own car. And he gets to toot the whistle. It's not fair.
Obama's campaign site suggests he's staying on the train Sunday, but the route is unconventional: back east to Reading, north to Scranton (where Obama and Bob Casey and family will be joined by Caroline Kennedy), then west to McKeesport and ending in Pittsburgh. The Scranton stop is very interesting--this area, where Hillary Rodham's family has deep roots, is considered all hers. Even more so than the Pittsburgh area. What does the Obama campaign know?
It also turns out that his Philadelphia speech last night was a template for his closing argument in PA, asking voters to declare their independence from the old politics, while mentioning Hillary's use of such politics more pointedly than before. It's an interesting tactic. Hillary, like most pols, likes to end on a positive, but this is forcing her to be defensive as well.
But Obama is also accentuating his positive message ("Get on board the change train!") as you can see from this video clip of his stop in Downingtown.
The expectations game is also underway, with Hillary's people suggesting the election will be close and emphasizing how much more money Obama is pouring into media in the state. Saturation ads are a risk, maybe especially in PA, because people can get annoyed by them. Add robocalls--which the Clintonistas are doing much more of, often negative attacks on Obama--and both campaigns risk alienating people who just want this to be over. Still, these moves and statements make me wonder what the non-public polls that each campaign has are telling them.
As for the intensity on both sides, man, I can feel it on this coast.
Otherwise, Obama picked up a super-delegate, and so did Hillary. The New York Times has a couple of pieces on defections and money troubles in the Clinton campaign, while the Gallup daily tracking poll has Hillary ahead for the first time in awhile. The fallout from the MoveOn.org tape continues within activist circles. Since it was founded at a key moment to defend Bill against impeachment, one of its founders asserts: "Without Move On, she would not be Senator Hillary Clinton. She would be the wife of disgraced-and-removed former President Clinton." And he asks In a third Clinton term, who will be the next core constituency to be steamrolled when the Clintons think the situation calls for it? Labor? Latinos? Who knows?" And for at least one now former Hillary supporter, this was the last straw.
There have been a number of eyewitness diaries on Kos about the Philadelphia rally last night--this one is especially good. A great point about the children coming to these events. If nothing else, this is something that's going to remain with the next generation.
Update: This neat diary with slide show from the Paoli stop, plus an overview of the campaigning today from Booman.
It turns out that Barack Obama's day in PA is being spent on old fashioned whistestops aboard a train, from Philadelphia to an evening rally in Harrisburg. I took that train route many times--it's incredibly beautiful, and it gets even more beautiful west of Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. They used to have historical guides ride some of those trips, and they would point out some of the rich history along the route. Of course, Obama has some other perks--like his own car. And he gets to toot the whistle. It's not fair.
Obama's campaign site suggests he's staying on the train Sunday, but the route is unconventional: back east to Reading, north to Scranton (where Obama and Bob Casey and family will be joined by Caroline Kennedy), then west to McKeesport and ending in Pittsburgh. The Scranton stop is very interesting--this area, where Hillary Rodham's family has deep roots, is considered all hers. Even more so than the Pittsburgh area. What does the Obama campaign know?
It also turns out that his Philadelphia speech last night was a template for his closing argument in PA, asking voters to declare their independence from the old politics, while mentioning Hillary's use of such politics more pointedly than before. It's an interesting tactic. Hillary, like most pols, likes to end on a positive, but this is forcing her to be defensive as well.
But Obama is also accentuating his positive message ("Get on board the change train!") as you can see from this video clip of his stop in Downingtown.
The expectations game is also underway, with Hillary's people suggesting the election will be close and emphasizing how much more money Obama is pouring into media in the state. Saturation ads are a risk, maybe especially in PA, because people can get annoyed by them. Add robocalls--which the Clintonistas are doing much more of, often negative attacks on Obama--and both campaigns risk alienating people who just want this to be over. Still, these moves and statements make me wonder what the non-public polls that each campaign has are telling them.
As for the intensity on both sides, man, I can feel it on this coast.
Otherwise, Obama picked up a super-delegate, and so did Hillary. The New York Times has a couple of pieces on defections and money troubles in the Clinton campaign, while the Gallup daily tracking poll has Hillary ahead for the first time in awhile. The fallout from the MoveOn.org tape continues within activist circles. Since it was founded at a key moment to defend Bill against impeachment, one of its founders asserts: "Without Move On, she would not be Senator Hillary Clinton. She would be the wife of disgraced-and-removed former President Clinton." And he asks In a third Clinton term, who will be the next core constituency to be steamrolled when the Clintons think the situation calls for it? Labor? Latinos? Who knows?" And for at least one now former Hillary supporter, this was the last straw.
There have been a number of eyewitness diaries on Kos about the Philadelphia rally last night--this one is especially good. A great point about the children coming to these events. If nothing else, this is something that's going to remain with the next generation.
Update: This neat diary with slide show from the Paoli stop, plus an overview of the campaigning today from Booman.
Home Stretch
Saturday, Sunday, Monday, then PA votes. Both candidates will be in the Commonwealth this weekend. One theory about how a campaign thinks they're doing is where they go in the closing days. Obama held a tremendous rally in Philadelphia Friday night--at between 35 and 40,000 it was the largest of the campaign, and some 5,000 enthusiasts kept it going with a spontaneous march a mile through the city. But he's leaving eastern PA, his acknowledged area of strength, and going to central PA Saturday and Sunday (Harrisburg on Saturday, Mike!) which is supposed to be Hillary territory. Hillary and Bill are both in western PA Saturday, defending her strongest area. It will be interesting to see if Obama keeps going west on Monday, to end in Pittsburgh.
The Obama strategy may simply be to hold down Clinton's popular vote margin, and introduce him in these areas with the general election in mind. Or his own polls are suggesting he is secure enough in the east to make Hillary defend the west.
So where was the CW today? Some were sounding doom for Hillary. Others were suggesting that the attacks on Obama may be working, and that PA will go big for her as undecideds slide her way.
In the long run, Reuters as well as others suggest that Clinton is pretty much finished. One interesting calculation said that after the primaries are over, Obama should be less than 100 delegates from the majority needed to win.
Then there is the Newsweek poll of Democrats nationally that saw the preference change from a virtual tie last month to a 19--yes, that's 19 point advantage for Obama. Besides Reich, Obama won the endorsement of foreign policy heavyweight and moderate Democrat Sam Nunn, and moderate Dem Sen. David Boren of Oklahoma.
But at the same time, the daily Gallup tracking poll has seen Obama's ten or 11 point lead gradually dwindle this week to 3. The Wall Street Journal said that Clinton needs a double-digit win in PA to remain viable, but some politicos like Pennsylvanian hard-baller Chris Matthews predict she'll get just that--in the neighborhood of 14 points. Hillary got some delegates as well Friday--one supe and two add-ons from New Jersey.
Then there are Events. One bit of breaking news Friday was yet another tape surfacing from a closed-door meeting, but this time it's of Hillary dissing the powerful group MoveOn.org (which ironically was formed to defend Bill Clinton against impeachment.) Some commentators feel this will hurt her in PA, especially because she is also on video praising the group in public. It has already hurt her with one prominent online supporter, Jane Hamsher of FiredogLake. MoveOn is a major anti-war force these days. Will this hurt Hillary with them? This may develop further this weekend, but it's hard to see who she will lose she hasn't already lost in PA, except perhaps antiwar women who've stuck with her. But if she were to be the nominee, she would need credibility with them, and she would need MoveOn. Another bridge to the 21st century burned?
Still, it seems unlikely to hurt her with those working class PA voters. There may be a lot of them in PA--their percentage of the eventual PA primary vote is one of the big unanswerable questions right now--but there's an argument that they're a shrinking demographic, and one that doesn't vote Democrat anymore anyway. The theory here is that Dems need to lose them by no more than 10 points or so.
These three days can be a lifetime, and then there's Tuesday when the last voters decide. Conventional wisdom is that if they're undecided at that point, they'll go for the past and vote for Hillary. How good CW is anymore will be tested in PA.
Finally, for Obama friends, don't miss this one minute video, adding some effects to a bit of Obama's speech in North Carolina, brushing off attacks.
Saturday, Sunday, Monday, then PA votes. Both candidates will be in the Commonwealth this weekend. One theory about how a campaign thinks they're doing is where they go in the closing days. Obama held a tremendous rally in Philadelphia Friday night--at between 35 and 40,000 it was the largest of the campaign, and some 5,000 enthusiasts kept it going with a spontaneous march a mile through the city. But he's leaving eastern PA, his acknowledged area of strength, and going to central PA Saturday and Sunday (Harrisburg on Saturday, Mike!) which is supposed to be Hillary territory. Hillary and Bill are both in western PA Saturday, defending her strongest area. It will be interesting to see if Obama keeps going west on Monday, to end in Pittsburgh.
The Obama strategy may simply be to hold down Clinton's popular vote margin, and introduce him in these areas with the general election in mind. Or his own polls are suggesting he is secure enough in the east to make Hillary defend the west.
So where was the CW today? Some were sounding doom for Hillary. Others were suggesting that the attacks on Obama may be working, and that PA will go big for her as undecideds slide her way.
In the long run, Reuters as well as others suggest that Clinton is pretty much finished. One interesting calculation said that after the primaries are over, Obama should be less than 100 delegates from the majority needed to win.
Then there is the Newsweek poll of Democrats nationally that saw the preference change from a virtual tie last month to a 19--yes, that's 19 point advantage for Obama. Besides Reich, Obama won the endorsement of foreign policy heavyweight and moderate Democrat Sam Nunn, and moderate Dem Sen. David Boren of Oklahoma.
But at the same time, the daily Gallup tracking poll has seen Obama's ten or 11 point lead gradually dwindle this week to 3. The Wall Street Journal said that Clinton needs a double-digit win in PA to remain viable, but some politicos like Pennsylvanian hard-baller Chris Matthews predict she'll get just that--in the neighborhood of 14 points. Hillary got some delegates as well Friday--one supe and two add-ons from New Jersey.
Then there are Events. One bit of breaking news Friday was yet another tape surfacing from a closed-door meeting, but this time it's of Hillary dissing the powerful group MoveOn.org (which ironically was formed to defend Bill Clinton against impeachment.) Some commentators feel this will hurt her in PA, especially because she is also on video praising the group in public. It has already hurt her with one prominent online supporter, Jane Hamsher of FiredogLake. MoveOn is a major anti-war force these days. Will this hurt Hillary with them? This may develop further this weekend, but it's hard to see who she will lose she hasn't already lost in PA, except perhaps antiwar women who've stuck with her. But if she were to be the nominee, she would need credibility with them, and she would need MoveOn. Another bridge to the 21st century burned?
Still, it seems unlikely to hurt her with those working class PA voters. There may be a lot of them in PA--their percentage of the eventual PA primary vote is one of the big unanswerable questions right now--but there's an argument that they're a shrinking demographic, and one that doesn't vote Democrat anymore anyway. The theory here is that Dems need to lose them by no more than 10 points or so.
These three days can be a lifetime, and then there's Tuesday when the last voters decide. Conventional wisdom is that if they're undecided at that point, they'll go for the past and vote for Hillary. How good CW is anymore will be tested in PA.
Finally, for Obama friends, don't miss this one minute video, adding some effects to a bit of Obama's speech in North Carolina, brushing off attacks.
Friday, April 18, 2008
The Motions
A theory emerged today, begun by Pat Buchanan of all people, but picked up by others, that these "manufactured distractions" (as Obama calls them) and the usual petty "character" issues (not flag burning this year, but a flag pin; not an ACLU membership card but serving on the same charity board with a former member of the Weather Underground who is now a well known, highly credentialed and pretty old Chicago citizen, etc.) that Clinton has helped unleash will ultimately benefit Obama, because if they don't work now, the Republicans won't have anything to use on him.
It's tricky, because the polls are showing Obama within 6 points or so in PA, and depending on a lot of unknowns, that may well be artificially low--he could be behind by more. If he doesn't come in under 10 points behind Clinton, the media may believe that these issues had resonance. But if PA doesn't buy them, who will? That's the thinking. Not very flattering to PA, and not very accurate, but if it means that some voters in the Commonwealth are especially vulnerable to these kinds of attacks, it's probably true. The question is: how many. I have to agree with Mike (in a Wednesday comment) that the Rendell machine is the biggest single factor favoring Hillary.
Generally it looked to me that the opinion on the debate turned as Thursday wore on, and the extent of the anger and disgust with ABC became clearer. Obama handled it perfectly. First of all, he went to friendly ground, in North Carolina. And he added the perfect gesture--a hand sweeping his shoulder, brushing off the manufactured distractions, after talking about how it took 45 minutes (probably longer) before he was asked the first substantive question on issues that voters care about. Some pundits and the old pols they listen to don't believe this--they think Obama should have hit Hillary harder. But I think he was right, it's not what voters want to hear, and by the end of the day, some media mouths were getting it.
But if the theory is right, keeping the campaign going isn't all bad. On the other hand, the nomination contest is just about over, and Howard Dean wants a nominee. He told CNN he wants super-delegates to begin declaring who they will vote for, starting right now. (One more did--from Oklahoma, a vote for Obama.)
Then there's the math, as they've been saying, that gets more compelling literally every day. According to this, Obama picked up another delegate in Ohio, as the result of absentee and provisional ballots just counted in a particular county. The revelation of that biggest of recent days for Hillary--when she won a close to 10 point victory in the Ohio popular vote, and a narrower popular vote victory in Texas--she picked up a net gain of five delegates. And even if she wins PA as expected, she may pick up as few as five or ten delegates there. Obama will get them all back and then some in North Carolina in early May.
So PA will tell us whether there is a "game changer" or whether we're just going through the motions until June 3. The problem may be interpretation. Realistically, Clinton has to win PA by 20 points, maybe 15, to change anything. Whether ABC News will see it that way is unlikely. The rest of the media, who knows? But super-delegates. Yeah, I think so.
Meanwhile, the Clintonians are touting the debate itself as a game changer. But the only thing Hillary seems to be changing is the minds of people who supported her. Today it's expected that Robert Reich, Billary's first Labor Secretary, will endorse Obama today. Although he's been favoring Obama, he'd said he'd vote for Hillary out of loyalty--until her recent negative campaign in PA. Obama also picked up another former Clinton supporter--this time a delegate, from DC.
And this morning's NY Times has a story saying Hillary's attacks haven't swayed. "Yet despite giving it her best shot in what might have been their final debate, interviews on Thursday with a cross-section of these superdelegates — members of Congress, elected officials and party leaders — showed that none had been persuaded much by her attacks on Mr. Obama’s strength as a potential Democratic nominee, his recent gaffes and his relationships with his former pastor and with a onetime member of the Weather Underground."
A theory emerged today, begun by Pat Buchanan of all people, but picked up by others, that these "manufactured distractions" (as Obama calls them) and the usual petty "character" issues (not flag burning this year, but a flag pin; not an ACLU membership card but serving on the same charity board with a former member of the Weather Underground who is now a well known, highly credentialed and pretty old Chicago citizen, etc.) that Clinton has helped unleash will ultimately benefit Obama, because if they don't work now, the Republicans won't have anything to use on him.
It's tricky, because the polls are showing Obama within 6 points or so in PA, and depending on a lot of unknowns, that may well be artificially low--he could be behind by more. If he doesn't come in under 10 points behind Clinton, the media may believe that these issues had resonance. But if PA doesn't buy them, who will? That's the thinking. Not very flattering to PA, and not very accurate, but if it means that some voters in the Commonwealth are especially vulnerable to these kinds of attacks, it's probably true. The question is: how many. I have to agree with Mike (in a Wednesday comment) that the Rendell machine is the biggest single factor favoring Hillary.
Generally it looked to me that the opinion on the debate turned as Thursday wore on, and the extent of the anger and disgust with ABC became clearer. Obama handled it perfectly. First of all, he went to friendly ground, in North Carolina. And he added the perfect gesture--a hand sweeping his shoulder, brushing off the manufactured distractions, after talking about how it took 45 minutes (probably longer) before he was asked the first substantive question on issues that voters care about. Some pundits and the old pols they listen to don't believe this--they think Obama should have hit Hillary harder. But I think he was right, it's not what voters want to hear, and by the end of the day, some media mouths were getting it.
But if the theory is right, keeping the campaign going isn't all bad. On the other hand, the nomination contest is just about over, and Howard Dean wants a nominee. He told CNN he wants super-delegates to begin declaring who they will vote for, starting right now. (One more did--from Oklahoma, a vote for Obama.)
Then there's the math, as they've been saying, that gets more compelling literally every day. According to this, Obama picked up another delegate in Ohio, as the result of absentee and provisional ballots just counted in a particular county. The revelation of that biggest of recent days for Hillary--when she won a close to 10 point victory in the Ohio popular vote, and a narrower popular vote victory in Texas--she picked up a net gain of five delegates. And even if she wins PA as expected, she may pick up as few as five or ten delegates there. Obama will get them all back and then some in North Carolina in early May.
So PA will tell us whether there is a "game changer" or whether we're just going through the motions until June 3. The problem may be interpretation. Realistically, Clinton has to win PA by 20 points, maybe 15, to change anything. Whether ABC News will see it that way is unlikely. The rest of the media, who knows? But super-delegates. Yeah, I think so.
Meanwhile, the Clintonians are touting the debate itself as a game changer. But the only thing Hillary seems to be changing is the minds of people who supported her. Today it's expected that Robert Reich, Billary's first Labor Secretary, will endorse Obama today. Although he's been favoring Obama, he'd said he'd vote for Hillary out of loyalty--until her recent negative campaign in PA. Obama also picked up another former Clinton supporter--this time a delegate, from DC.
And this morning's NY Times has a story saying Hillary's attacks haven't swayed. "Yet despite giving it her best shot in what might have been their final debate, interviews on Thursday with a cross-section of these superdelegates — members of Congress, elected officials and party leaders — showed that none had been persuaded much by her attacks on Mr. Obama’s strength as a potential Democratic nominee, his recent gaffes and his relationships with his former pastor and with a onetime member of the Weather Underground."
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Fallout
Pennsylvania State Senator Leeanne Washington, and Democrats Dar Thomas and and Susan Petrow announced this morning that they are switching from supporting Hillary to Obama because of Hillary's negativity and dishonesty.
The Philadephia Daily News endorsed Obama, and the Harrisburg Patriot News also did yesterday. That's pretty much a clean sweep of major PA newspapers. This doesn't necessarily translate into popular votes-- Obama swept the big papers in Texas, too. But it helps even out Clinton's Rendell machine advantage.
The ABC debacle last night got big ratings, especially the first half hour. But the fallout continues today with a major level of rage against the network and its "moderators"--if ever a word was ironic, this is it. Most but not all reviews say Obama had a bad debate or even his worst debate, but a few got the point that he was talking directly to voters about the "gotcha" questions, and Hillary remained negative, scoring debate points, but underscoring her reputation.
But I believe voters hear Obama when he says (and he said in the debate):
I think what's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history. We are going to be tackling some of the biggest issues that any president has dealt with in the last 40 years. Our economy is teetering not just on the edge of recession, but potentially worse. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. We are involved in two wars. People's incomes have not gone up, and their costs have. And we're seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s.
In those circumstances, for us to be obsessed with this -- these kinds of errors I think is a mistake. And that's not what our campaign has been about.
What our campaign has been about is offering some specific solutions to how we move these issues forward and identifying the need to change the culture in Washington, which we haven't talked at all about, but that has blocked real reform decade after decade after decade. That, I think, is the job of the next president of the United States. That's what I intend to do. That's why I'm running.
Obama is betting that people hear him on this. I'm betting on it, too, because if they aren't, this country is finished.
Pennsylvania State Senator Leeanne Washington, and Democrats Dar Thomas and and Susan Petrow announced this morning that they are switching from supporting Hillary to Obama because of Hillary's negativity and dishonesty.
The Philadephia Daily News endorsed Obama, and the Harrisburg Patriot News also did yesterday. That's pretty much a clean sweep of major PA newspapers. This doesn't necessarily translate into popular votes-- Obama swept the big papers in Texas, too. But it helps even out Clinton's Rendell machine advantage.
The ABC debacle last night got big ratings, especially the first half hour. But the fallout continues today with a major level of rage against the network and its "moderators"--if ever a word was ironic, this is it. Most but not all reviews say Obama had a bad debate or even his worst debate, but a few got the point that he was talking directly to voters about the "gotcha" questions, and Hillary remained negative, scoring debate points, but underscoring her reputation.
But I believe voters hear Obama when he says (and he said in the debate):
I think what's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history. We are going to be tackling some of the biggest issues that any president has dealt with in the last 40 years. Our economy is teetering not just on the edge of recession, but potentially worse. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. We are involved in two wars. People's incomes have not gone up, and their costs have. And we're seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s.
In those circumstances, for us to be obsessed with this -- these kinds of errors I think is a mistake. And that's not what our campaign has been about.
What our campaign has been about is offering some specific solutions to how we move these issues forward and identifying the need to change the culture in Washington, which we haven't talked at all about, but that has blocked real reform decade after decade after decade. That, I think, is the job of the next president of the United States. That's what I intend to do. That's why I'm running.
Obama is betting that people hear him on this. I'm betting on it, too, because if they aren't, this country is finished.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Debate on Mars
Because the American Bullshit Network taped-delayed tonight's debate for the West Coast, I had the unusual experience of hearing the punditry pronouncements before I saw any of the debate. Often enough I've found my experience of debates different from what I heard from commentators, but tonight it's so different that there must have been another debate in a parallel universe I didn't see.
Chuck Todd is only one of the pundits who saw this as a bad Obama performance, partly because the A Bullshitters spent the first 50 minutes of a two hour debate on what Obama kept calling "distractions." (Apparently only Halperin dissents, giving Obama a B+ grade, and Clinton a B.) Every time these issues come up--'bitter,' Rev. Wright, the flag pin for chrissakes, and now an elderly Weatherman--the pundits go crazy, they find a few people who are credulous and offended, and then there's an election and/or the polls come out, and nobody else really cares. Obama has answered these questions, and he did so insistently and in context again tonight.
The upshot was that for those 50 minutes, he did most of the talking, and Clinton just stood there. He couched all his explanations and answers in terms of his rationale and main argument for running. I think he talked directly to viewers and voters, and he connected. And so I think Chuck Todd and the others are full of the same shit as the American Bullshit Corporation "journalists," neocon Charlie Whatshisname and former Clinton press secretary George Stepinitalloverus.
Update: The TV punditry didn't have much to say about ABC but print and Internet writers sure have. Tom Shales, TV critic for the Washington Post, writes that the ABC hosts "turned in shoddy, despicable performances."
"For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with."
This is how people were responding on live threads during the debate and now in a host of online columns on HuffPost, etc. ABC got thousands of critical comments, there's talk that the studio audience was in revolt. ABC hasn't heard the end of this. Even Gov. Ed Rendell was critical.
In the meantime, Obama picked up four more super-delegates Wednesday. And that doesn't count Bruce Springsteen--the boss also endorsed him.
And as Kos points out, Hillary ceded her stealth "he's unelectable" argument by admitting that Obama can win against McCain.
The saddest line in Shales' rebuke was that the cable channels did a better job running these debates. My first thought after seeing much of the debate was expressed by Marty Kaplan--give these debates back to the League of Women Voters--and by a commenter on his thread-- and put them on PBS.
Because the American Bullshit Network taped-delayed tonight's debate for the West Coast, I had the unusual experience of hearing the punditry pronouncements before I saw any of the debate. Often enough I've found my experience of debates different from what I heard from commentators, but tonight it's so different that there must have been another debate in a parallel universe I didn't see.
Chuck Todd is only one of the pundits who saw this as a bad Obama performance, partly because the A Bullshitters spent the first 50 minutes of a two hour debate on what Obama kept calling "distractions." (Apparently only Halperin dissents, giving Obama a B+ grade, and Clinton a B.) Every time these issues come up--'bitter,' Rev. Wright, the flag pin for chrissakes, and now an elderly Weatherman--the pundits go crazy, they find a few people who are credulous and offended, and then there's an election and/or the polls come out, and nobody else really cares. Obama has answered these questions, and he did so insistently and in context again tonight.
The upshot was that for those 50 minutes, he did most of the talking, and Clinton just stood there. He couched all his explanations and answers in terms of his rationale and main argument for running. I think he talked directly to viewers and voters, and he connected. And so I think Chuck Todd and the others are full of the same shit as the American Bullshit Corporation "journalists," neocon Charlie Whatshisname and former Clinton press secretary George Stepinitalloverus.
Update: The TV punditry didn't have much to say about ABC but print and Internet writers sure have. Tom Shales, TV critic for the Washington Post, writes that the ABC hosts "turned in shoddy, despicable performances."
"For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with."
This is how people were responding on live threads during the debate and now in a host of online columns on HuffPost, etc. ABC got thousands of critical comments, there's talk that the studio audience was in revolt. ABC hasn't heard the end of this. Even Gov. Ed Rendell was critical.
In the meantime, Obama picked up four more super-delegates Wednesday. And that doesn't count Bruce Springsteen--the boss also endorsed him.
And as Kos points out, Hillary ceded her stealth "he's unelectable" argument by admitting that Obama can win against McCain.
The saddest line in Shales' rebuke was that the cable channels did a better job running these debates. My first thought after seeing much of the debate was expressed by Marty Kaplan--give these debates back to the League of Women Voters--and by a commenter on his thread-- and put them on PBS.
Wednesday Begins Well
Good morning, Mike, and anybody else who might be listening in. Had to share this with you if you haven't heard: the Pittsburgh Post Gazette endorsed Obama today:
So forget all the primary skirmishing. Sen. Obama is every bit as prepared to answer the ring of the 3 a.m. phone as Sen. Clinton. Forget this idea that Sen. Obama is all inspiration and no substance. He has detailed positions on the major issues. When the occasion demands it, he can marshal eloquence in the service of making challenging arguments, which he did to great effect in his now-famous speech putting his pastor's remarks in the greater context of race relations in America.
Nor is he any sort of elitist. As he said yesterday in effectively refuting this ridiculous charge in a meeting with Post-Gazette editors, "my life's work has been to get everybody a fair shake."
This editorial began by observing that one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new.
Sen. Obama has captured much of the nation's imagination for a reason. He offers real change, a vision of an America that can move past not only racial tensions but also the political partisanship that has so bedeviled it."
In advance of the debate ABC hosts tonight, ABC and the Washington Post conducted a poll of Democrats, and it shows Obama with a ten point lead over Clinton nationally (about the same as the latest Gallups), but shows Clinton falling far behind on all the qualities: leadership, change, trust, etc. Her campaign is doing her in. But the Post story on it also says that the Dems surveyed weren't overly anxious to see the campaign end. Sigh.
So, always nervous about debates. Clinton usually gets a bump, but this time there's almost a week until election day. Right now my guess is that she's about ten points up. Based on past performance, you have to add about five points to her poll totals once election day comes. Though I'd like to see this one be different.
I keep waiting for the Change but it hasn't come yet, and it may not until the general election. But maybe it has. Maybe I saw it in some tape of Obama walking down a street in Bloomington, IND shaking hands. Maybe in the film on him visiting the Post-Gazette offices. Maybe in his last few speeches. But the Change would be when everybody knows he's the candidate, he's different, he's the President. An updated JFK effect maybe.
It'll be interesting to see what the mood is in and around that debate.
Good morning, Mike, and anybody else who might be listening in. Had to share this with you if you haven't heard: the Pittsburgh Post Gazette endorsed Obama today:
So forget all the primary skirmishing. Sen. Obama is every bit as prepared to answer the ring of the 3 a.m. phone as Sen. Clinton. Forget this idea that Sen. Obama is all inspiration and no substance. He has detailed positions on the major issues. When the occasion demands it, he can marshal eloquence in the service of making challenging arguments, which he did to great effect in his now-famous speech putting his pastor's remarks in the greater context of race relations in America.
Nor is he any sort of elitist. As he said yesterday in effectively refuting this ridiculous charge in a meeting with Post-Gazette editors, "my life's work has been to get everybody a fair shake."
This editorial began by observing that one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new.
Sen. Obama has captured much of the nation's imagination for a reason. He offers real change, a vision of an America that can move past not only racial tensions but also the political partisanship that has so bedeviled it."
In advance of the debate ABC hosts tonight, ABC and the Washington Post conducted a poll of Democrats, and it shows Obama with a ten point lead over Clinton nationally (about the same as the latest Gallups), but shows Clinton falling far behind on all the qualities: leadership, change, trust, etc. Her campaign is doing her in. But the Post story on it also says that the Dems surveyed weren't overly anxious to see the campaign end. Sigh.
So, always nervous about debates. Clinton usually gets a bump, but this time there's almost a week until election day. Right now my guess is that she's about ten points up. Based on past performance, you have to add about five points to her poll totals once election day comes. Though I'd like to see this one be different.
I keep waiting for the Change but it hasn't come yet, and it may not until the general election. But maybe it has. Maybe I saw it in some tape of Obama walking down a street in Bloomington, IND shaking hands. Maybe in the film on him visiting the Post-Gazette offices. Maybe in his last few speeches. But the Change would be when everybody knows he's the candidate, he's different, he's the President. An updated JFK effect maybe.
It'll be interesting to see what the mood is in and around that debate.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Astrology
Well, maybe HufPost has it right, when they group poll results with astrology forecasts. Another new poll actually has Obama leading in Indiana by five points, and it too was taken over the weekend and yesterday. This LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama leading in Indiana 40% to 35%, and Clinton leading in PA by 5 points. Obama's lead in North Carolina is 13%, which is under what most other polls show. So who knows.
But for what they're worth, the other polls released today show little movement in PA. SUSA sees Hillary ahead by 14, which is actually down 4 points from last week. It's one week until the voting. For somebody who is double digits ahead, Hillary has been getting some rough audiences lately, and Obama has been soaring. His momentum was probably blunted by this dust-up, but he was also liberated to attack Hillary more directly. There's the debate coming up, and some high profile TV appearances. It will all come down to this week.
Interestingly, there's a Washington Post article headlined "McCain Echoes Clinton Attacks" with this:
Looking for any possible edge, the Clinton campaign has pressed uncommitted superdelegates to view Obama's remarks as a major debacle that could harm him in November. But as of yesterday evening, there was little evidence that the electability argument is resonating.
Rep. Mike Doyle (D), an undecided superdelegate who represents Pittsburgh and surrounding towns in the Monongahela Valley, said yesterday that he was not particularly troubled by Obama's comments.
"I don't disagree with a lot of what he said. My dad was a mill worker. My grandfather was a steel mill worker, and when the steel industry collapsed, nobody's family was hurt more than mine," Doyle said. "It's not inaccurate to say a lot of politicians have come through these towns, made a lot of promises and failed to deliver. I thought he was spot-on when he said how people feel."
He added that Obama's unexpected endorsement yesterday by Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney "carries a hell of a lot more weight" than the blowup over his comments about small-town residents.
I spoke with my sister in western PA, and ascertained that there are 7 or 8 votes in my family for Obama, none for Clinton.
Though Clinton is apparently trying to keep the controversy alive, TV has finally moved on: the Pope and polygamy are enough.
Well, maybe HufPost has it right, when they group poll results with astrology forecasts. Another new poll actually has Obama leading in Indiana by five points, and it too was taken over the weekend and yesterday. This LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama leading in Indiana 40% to 35%, and Clinton leading in PA by 5 points. Obama's lead in North Carolina is 13%, which is under what most other polls show. So who knows.
But for what they're worth, the other polls released today show little movement in PA. SUSA sees Hillary ahead by 14, which is actually down 4 points from last week. It's one week until the voting. For somebody who is double digits ahead, Hillary has been getting some rough audiences lately, and Obama has been soaring. His momentum was probably blunted by this dust-up, but he was also liberated to attack Hillary more directly. There's the debate coming up, and some high profile TV appearances. It will all come down to this week.
Interestingly, there's a Washington Post article headlined "McCain Echoes Clinton Attacks" with this:
Looking for any possible edge, the Clinton campaign has pressed uncommitted superdelegates to view Obama's remarks as a major debacle that could harm him in November. But as of yesterday evening, there was little evidence that the electability argument is resonating.
Rep. Mike Doyle (D), an undecided superdelegate who represents Pittsburgh and surrounding towns in the Monongahela Valley, said yesterday that he was not particularly troubled by Obama's comments.
"I don't disagree with a lot of what he said. My dad was a mill worker. My grandfather was a steel mill worker, and when the steel industry collapsed, nobody's family was hurt more than mine," Doyle said. "It's not inaccurate to say a lot of politicians have come through these towns, made a lot of promises and failed to deliver. I thought he was spot-on when he said how people feel."
He added that Obama's unexpected endorsement yesterday by Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney "carries a hell of a lot more weight" than the blowup over his comments about small-town residents.
I spoke with my sister in western PA, and ascertained that there are 7 or 8 votes in my family for Obama, none for Clinton.
Though Clinton is apparently trying to keep the controversy alive, TV has finally moved on: the Pope and polygamy are enough.
Monday into Tuesday
On Monday, TV news fulminators kept their focus on the Obama gaffe, though by evening a few commentators were questioning whether they're talking to themselves. While pundits continued to warn of trouble from it, most signs were that it was having little or no effect. USA Today found Still, in more than a dozen interviews here, even conservative Republicans couldn't muster the sort of outrage over Obama's remarks that Clinton backers were expressing Sunday. The AP found PA citizens it interviewed divided--some were bothered, But many more seem to think it was no big deal — and if there's a problem it's with the political slapfest that has followed.
By the end of the day, no less an authority than PA Gov Ed Rendell, Hillary's chief backer in the state, said it might cost Obama a couple of points at the margin in PA, but was no big deal. Opined the Boston Globe blog, But his downplaying of the Obama controversy today would seem to undermine Clinton in a big way, given that her campaign has spent the last four days trying to blow it up as big as possible. But even Hillary might be having second thoughts, since she was hissed when she tried to bring it up to the same Pittsburgh audience --the Alliance for American Manufacturing Forum, an audience of steelworkers and steel execs--that had cheered Obama.
Speaking of Pittsburgh, Obama got the endorsement of the most revered man in the city, Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers and not given to political pronouncements. His "letter to Pennsylvanians" began: Based on the experiences that I have had in my seventy-five years and my assessment of what I think our nation needs to make real the change that is so needed, I am proud and now feel compelled to endorse Senator Barack Obama.
A number of western and central PA officeholders have been defending Obama against the Clinton attacks, and on Monday Obama got the formal endorsement of the Dauphin County Commissioner. This blogger identifies him as a former mayor of Steelton and an up and coming young politician, whose influence balances out the endorsement by the mayor of Harrisburg, which is in Dauphin county.
The polls released Monday that were taken over the weekend also showed no discernable effect, either nationally or in PA. (The ARG poll that showed a sudden 20 point jump for Hillary was dismissable; it's not a respected polling outfit.)
However, a really alarming poll is just out Tuesday morning--the very respected SUSA shows Obama doing poorly in Indiana. Though Hillary picked up only 3 points, Obama lost 4, and there were some huge swings in the internals, including an unbelievable swing among young voters, from Obama leading by 19 points to trailing now by 2. This poll was taken Friday through Sunday, precisely the time this dust-up was happening. This is the poll pundits are likely to be talking about today, and it probably will feed this story just as it seemed it could be dying down. Good grief.
On Monday, TV news fulminators kept their focus on the Obama gaffe, though by evening a few commentators were questioning whether they're talking to themselves. While pundits continued to warn of trouble from it, most signs were that it was having little or no effect. USA Today found Still, in more than a dozen interviews here, even conservative Republicans couldn't muster the sort of outrage over Obama's remarks that Clinton backers were expressing Sunday. The AP found PA citizens it interviewed divided--some were bothered, But many more seem to think it was no big deal — and if there's a problem it's with the political slapfest that has followed.
By the end of the day, no less an authority than PA Gov Ed Rendell, Hillary's chief backer in the state, said it might cost Obama a couple of points at the margin in PA, but was no big deal. Opined the Boston Globe blog, But his downplaying of the Obama controversy today would seem to undermine Clinton in a big way, given that her campaign has spent the last four days trying to blow it up as big as possible. But even Hillary might be having second thoughts, since she was hissed when she tried to bring it up to the same Pittsburgh audience --the Alliance for American Manufacturing Forum, an audience of steelworkers and steel execs--that had cheered Obama.
Speaking of Pittsburgh, Obama got the endorsement of the most revered man in the city, Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers and not given to political pronouncements. His "letter to Pennsylvanians" began: Based on the experiences that I have had in my seventy-five years and my assessment of what I think our nation needs to make real the change that is so needed, I am proud and now feel compelled to endorse Senator Barack Obama.
A number of western and central PA officeholders have been defending Obama against the Clinton attacks, and on Monday Obama got the formal endorsement of the Dauphin County Commissioner. This blogger identifies him as a former mayor of Steelton and an up and coming young politician, whose influence balances out the endorsement by the mayor of Harrisburg, which is in Dauphin county.
The polls released Monday that were taken over the weekend also showed no discernable effect, either nationally or in PA. (The ARG poll that showed a sudden 20 point jump for Hillary was dismissable; it's not a respected polling outfit.)
However, a really alarming poll is just out Tuesday morning--the very respected SUSA shows Obama doing poorly in Indiana. Though Hillary picked up only 3 points, Obama lost 4, and there were some huge swings in the internals, including an unbelievable swing among young voters, from Obama leading by 19 points to trailing now by 2. This poll was taken Friday through Sunday, precisely the time this dust-up was happening. This is the poll pundits are likely to be talking about today, and it probably will feed this story just as it seemed it could be dying down. Good grief.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Masterpiece Theatre
I've got multiple deadlines to deal with, but I'll point to two events Sunday: here's an account of the forum in PA on faith that Hillary and Obama participated in, with extensive quotes. And here is the YouTube link for part of a speech Obama made to a labor union audience in Steelton, in which he comes back hard--and with humor--at Hillary, and again pivots on the 'bitter' controversy to make his main rationale, and connect more strongly than ever with working voters. Read that and watch this, and know you've seen the master politician of our time.
Well, okay just a couple more things. Multiple instances (here and here) of Bill Clinton saying/writing the same thing that Obama said that Hillary got so exercised about.
And here's an earlier statement by members of the PA Sportmen and Sportswomen for Obama group. The response most often expressed in statements like this, and in comments on various web sites about this story, is that Hillary is playing politics with the truth. And Obama used this at exactly the right time in his comments in Steelton.
I've got multiple deadlines to deal with, but I'll point to two events Sunday: here's an account of the forum in PA on faith that Hillary and Obama participated in, with extensive quotes. And here is the YouTube link for part of a speech Obama made to a labor union audience in Steelton, in which he comes back hard--and with humor--at Hillary, and again pivots on the 'bitter' controversy to make his main rationale, and connect more strongly than ever with working voters. Read that and watch this, and know you've seen the master politician of our time.
Well, okay just a couple more things. Multiple instances (here and here) of Bill Clinton saying/writing the same thing that Obama said that Hillary got so exercised about.
And here's an earlier statement by members of the PA Sportmen and Sportswomen for Obama group. The response most often expressed in statements like this, and in comments on various web sites about this story, is that Hillary is playing politics with the truth. And Obama used this at exactly the right time in his comments in Steelton.
Sunday Call
Two PA newspapers endorsed a candidate in the Dem primary this morning, the Times-Tribune in Scranton, where Hillary was born and where she is campaigning today:
For Pennsylvania Democrats, the best answer in the April 22 primary is Barack Obama. In a nomination campaign that has defied convention, Mr. Obama has energized an entire generation of voters that, for the most part, otherwise had checked out of political participation. That, at least, portends a new approach to governance that can help to dissipate the political miasma that has engulfed Washington at least since the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.
The Allentown Morning Call:
The Morning Call recommends that Sen. Barack Obama be nominated, and we offer three reasons.The first is the quality of his campaign. It has surprised the experts by moving him close to the finish line against bigger, more established political machines and it has communicated his basic ideas well.The second is his message of hope and change. It conveys a vision of the nation's future that is in tune with the tenor and consensus of most Americans.And third, and most important for the Democratic Party at this moment in history, there is Sen. Obama's ability to inspire.
This report goes inside poll numbers to suggest Hillary's support among white women was waning--and a Clintonian agrees-- partly because of how she conducts her campaign. What she's doing now is only going to erode it further, in my estimation.
And sounding a theme that a number of articles have focused on, one of the women is quoted: "If I ever want to look my kids in the eye again," she laughed, "I have to go with Obama."
Obama picked up another super-delegate, in Minnesota, who is also a member of the Democratic National Committee.
Two PA newspapers endorsed a candidate in the Dem primary this morning, the Times-Tribune in Scranton, where Hillary was born and where she is campaigning today:
For Pennsylvania Democrats, the best answer in the April 22 primary is Barack Obama. In a nomination campaign that has defied convention, Mr. Obama has energized an entire generation of voters that, for the most part, otherwise had checked out of political participation. That, at least, portends a new approach to governance that can help to dissipate the political miasma that has engulfed Washington at least since the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.
The Allentown Morning Call:
The Morning Call recommends that Sen. Barack Obama be nominated, and we offer three reasons.The first is the quality of his campaign. It has surprised the experts by moving him close to the finish line against bigger, more established political machines and it has communicated his basic ideas well.The second is his message of hope and change. It conveys a vision of the nation's future that is in tune with the tenor and consensus of most Americans.And third, and most important for the Democratic Party at this moment in history, there is Sen. Obama's ability to inspire.
This report goes inside poll numbers to suggest Hillary's support among white women was waning--and a Clintonian agrees-- partly because of how she conducts her campaign. What she's doing now is only going to erode it further, in my estimation.
And sounding a theme that a number of articles have focused on, one of the women is quoted: "If I ever want to look my kids in the eye again," she laughed, "I have to go with Obama."
Obama picked up another super-delegate, in Minnesota, who is also a member of the Democratic National Committee.
Hillary's Code
Not it's not about Hillary's code of ethics. That would be a very short post. It's about her wholesale use of racial code in her frantic attempt to misconstrue an Obama statement taken out of context.
It's hard to read her intent otherwise when, as JedReport shows, she utters the word "American" 18 times in a four minute speech criticizing Obama. In this context, "not American" is racial code for "not white." In this context, it's arguable but relevant to see the charge of being "elitist" as code for "uppity." Because the context clearly is (given her references to white working class childhood and her sudden embracing of the gun culture, as well as new photos of her swilling beer and downing shots with red-faced white men) an attempt to win the white working class male vote, which was slipping away from her in PA and Indiana. Her last hopes for viability rest with that group.
It's a gamble she might lose. She's trying to pump up her numbers in small town and rural white working class areas, but she may only get the votes she would have gotten anyway: those of racist whites who never would have voted for Obama, and now don't have to hide the fact. They don't have to say it's because he's black, let alone an uppity black. They can say it's because he's not American, and elitist.
Her problem in PA and Indiana, and certainly in North Carolina, is that the people who understand code words perfectly well are African Americans. They have already registered in record numbers in PA and North Carolina. Until she started this, there was some danger in PA--especially in Philadelphia--that the party machine working for Hillary would suppress the black vote, because people don't want to defy the local party, but they don't want to vote for Hillary either. Now that's not going to happen. African American voters are going to come out to defend Barack in tremendous numbers in PA and Indiana, and with such numbers in North Carolina that Obama will win more of the delegates there than he might have otherwise.
Is this racial polarization good for Democrats? Of course not. But if Hillary is able to hoodwink white working class voters, the so-called Reagan Democrats, into voting for her in the primary, this time they will be marginalizing themselves. Because the cold political calculus says that some of these are going to vote for McCain even if Hillary was the Democratic nominee. But no African Americans are going to vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee.
We'll see how latent racism is in the broader white community, and just how far we've come in getting beyond it. But here's the politics we know: Black voters in unprecedented numbers, young people in unprecedented numbers, a healthy chunk of middle class white voters (including Independents and some Republicans), and (if it is Obama v. McCain) Latino voters, who also know code when they hear it-- in every part of the country: that's the Obama coalition. Hillary is currently alienating all of them with her campaign. This is going to win over super-delegates?
In fact what will be interesting to observe is how this "covert" but very obvious racism plays with her actual bedrock constituency, older white women and older upper middle class feminists. How are the women who want to see Hillary as a role model and/or a victim of nasty men going to see this? Do her older white feminists believe in justice, equality, empathy and consciousness? Or are they just another selfish pressure group, with their own racial and class issues, willing to lose everything in November as well?
As for how this is playing now, those who feel this is a fatal error are currently the loudest, but the sentiment isn't unanimous. There's this quote from a Washington Post piece: But another Democratic strategist, who assessed the moment candidly on the condition of anonymity, said: "Ultimately, the case that McCain and Clinton will try to make that Obama is an elitist or out of touch has to be credible to the voter, and I don't believe it is. My sense is more people believe Obama, rather than McCain or Clinton, understand their lives and the challenges they face on a daily basis."
There are outraged posts on the Internet like this one. Even Joe Klein at Time is unconvinced. And there are plenty of progressives at least who see this as Hillary's last desperate act, and another sign the Republicans are afraid to run against Obama. And yet another signal that the corporate media will always try to do in a progressive candidate, as well as Hillary's ethical code: she'll destroy anybody--including the party and the country's future--in order to win something.
So far I see Obama bringing more visible and audible emotion to his empathy for the people left out by the Clinton-Bush boom for the wealthy, and more emotion to his call for the need to change Washington and elect people who will listen. So far I see his supporters rallying, and I'm guessing he's going to come out of this weekend having received far more campaign donations than Hillary-McCain. The battle has been joined. One more fight for the American soul and the world's future.
Not it's not about Hillary's code of ethics. That would be a very short post. It's about her wholesale use of racial code in her frantic attempt to misconstrue an Obama statement taken out of context.
It's hard to read her intent otherwise when, as JedReport shows, she utters the word "American" 18 times in a four minute speech criticizing Obama. In this context, "not American" is racial code for "not white." In this context, it's arguable but relevant to see the charge of being "elitist" as code for "uppity." Because the context clearly is (given her references to white working class childhood and her sudden embracing of the gun culture, as well as new photos of her swilling beer and downing shots with red-faced white men) an attempt to win the white working class male vote, which was slipping away from her in PA and Indiana. Her last hopes for viability rest with that group.
It's a gamble she might lose. She's trying to pump up her numbers in small town and rural white working class areas, but she may only get the votes she would have gotten anyway: those of racist whites who never would have voted for Obama, and now don't have to hide the fact. They don't have to say it's because he's black, let alone an uppity black. They can say it's because he's not American, and elitist.
Her problem in PA and Indiana, and certainly in North Carolina, is that the people who understand code words perfectly well are African Americans. They have already registered in record numbers in PA and North Carolina. Until she started this, there was some danger in PA--especially in Philadelphia--that the party machine working for Hillary would suppress the black vote, because people don't want to defy the local party, but they don't want to vote for Hillary either. Now that's not going to happen. African American voters are going to come out to defend Barack in tremendous numbers in PA and Indiana, and with such numbers in North Carolina that Obama will win more of the delegates there than he might have otherwise.
Is this racial polarization good for Democrats? Of course not. But if Hillary is able to hoodwink white working class voters, the so-called Reagan Democrats, into voting for her in the primary, this time they will be marginalizing themselves. Because the cold political calculus says that some of these are going to vote for McCain even if Hillary was the Democratic nominee. But no African Americans are going to vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee.
We'll see how latent racism is in the broader white community, and just how far we've come in getting beyond it. But here's the politics we know: Black voters in unprecedented numbers, young people in unprecedented numbers, a healthy chunk of middle class white voters (including Independents and some Republicans), and (if it is Obama v. McCain) Latino voters, who also know code when they hear it-- in every part of the country: that's the Obama coalition. Hillary is currently alienating all of them with her campaign. This is going to win over super-delegates?
In fact what will be interesting to observe is how this "covert" but very obvious racism plays with her actual bedrock constituency, older white women and older upper middle class feminists. How are the women who want to see Hillary as a role model and/or a victim of nasty men going to see this? Do her older white feminists believe in justice, equality, empathy and consciousness? Or are they just another selfish pressure group, with their own racial and class issues, willing to lose everything in November as well?
As for how this is playing now, those who feel this is a fatal error are currently the loudest, but the sentiment isn't unanimous. There's this quote from a Washington Post piece: But another Democratic strategist, who assessed the moment candidly on the condition of anonymity, said: "Ultimately, the case that McCain and Clinton will try to make that Obama is an elitist or out of touch has to be credible to the voter, and I don't believe it is. My sense is more people believe Obama, rather than McCain or Clinton, understand their lives and the challenges they face on a daily basis."
There are outraged posts on the Internet like this one. Even Joe Klein at Time is unconvinced. And there are plenty of progressives at least who see this as Hillary's last desperate act, and another sign the Republicans are afraid to run against Obama. And yet another signal that the corporate media will always try to do in a progressive candidate, as well as Hillary's ethical code: she'll destroy anybody--including the party and the country's future--in order to win something.
So far I see Obama bringing more visible and audible emotion to his empathy for the people left out by the Clinton-Bush boom for the wealthy, and more emotion to his call for the need to change Washington and elect people who will listen. So far I see his supporters rallying, and I'm guessing he's going to come out of this weekend having received far more campaign donations than Hillary-McCain. The battle has been joined. One more fight for the American soul and the world's future.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Saturday Flap Jack
A kinder gentler Hillary? Are you kidding? She has heightened the rhetoric and intensity of her criticism of Barack Obama over his comments to the point that her only possible objective is to destroy him. Yes, she will do literally anything to win this nomination. She is in lock step with the Republican candidate--in fact, she's taking the lead. No Democrat in memory has ever attacked another so savagely and personally in a presidential primary. And so far, though it has inflamed the bloodthirsty cable channels, it doesn't seem to be working with voters. Says an NBC reporter in North Carolina, But the issue doesn't seem to be sticking.
While Obama has apologized if he offended anyone and acknowledges that his choice of words in California could have been better, he's sticking to the main point--which supports his rationale for running.
A sampling of opinion on the usual sites shows about a 50-50 split on this becoming a damaging item. But because Clinton and Obama are about to be in the same city (Pittsburgh) at the same time, and then a joint appearance at a forum and then a debate, it's going to be raised again as long as the McCain-Clinton ticket believes it helps their cause. Al G. at the Field (who swears by the SUSA polls) suggests that their next poll will tell, but that Clinton has little room to grow in blue collar/rural areas, while sustained attack on Obama that appears to be piling on could get a backlash in Philly. But the key the pollsters say in PA and more importantly in the long run Indiana, is the white male with the blue collar. Do they see Obama insulting them, or as articulating their anger? Those who are racist will take the former view, as an excuse and an emotional response. This is very dangerous territory: the uppity factor. But black voters are going to see it that way, too. So more of them may defy the party leaders in Philly and PA, and in Indiana, to defend Barack.
A kinder gentler Hillary? Are you kidding? She has heightened the rhetoric and intensity of her criticism of Barack Obama over his comments to the point that her only possible objective is to destroy him. Yes, she will do literally anything to win this nomination. She is in lock step with the Republican candidate--in fact, she's taking the lead. No Democrat in memory has ever attacked another so savagely and personally in a presidential primary. And so far, though it has inflamed the bloodthirsty cable channels, it doesn't seem to be working with voters. Says an NBC reporter in North Carolina, But the issue doesn't seem to be sticking.
While Obama has apologized if he offended anyone and acknowledges that his choice of words in California could have been better, he's sticking to the main point--which supports his rationale for running.
A sampling of opinion on the usual sites shows about a 50-50 split on this becoming a damaging item. But because Clinton and Obama are about to be in the same city (Pittsburgh) at the same time, and then a joint appearance at a forum and then a debate, it's going to be raised again as long as the McCain-Clinton ticket believes it helps their cause. Al G. at the Field (who swears by the SUSA polls) suggests that their next poll will tell, but that Clinton has little room to grow in blue collar/rural areas, while sustained attack on Obama that appears to be piling on could get a backlash in Philly. But the key the pollsters say in PA and more importantly in the long run Indiana, is the white male with the blue collar. Do they see Obama insulting them, or as articulating their anger? Those who are racist will take the former view, as an excuse and an emotional response. This is very dangerous territory: the uppity factor. But black voters are going to see it that way, too. So more of them may defy the party leaders in Philly and PA, and in Indiana, to defend Barack.
Flap
As night fell on Friday, one of those instant controversies was burning up the Internet, the fax machines and emails from various campaigns and political organizations, and feeding cable news fulminators, concerning remarks Barack Obama made at a San Francisco fundraiser days ago, but quoted in an online piece at Huffington Post earlier Friday.
Here's a link to the comment, the fulminations and Obama's video rejoinder. (Here's a print version as well, but the video is worth seeing.) Judge for yourself. (And early reaction from a CNN panel, which has apparently been superceded by other vultures.) My own view: Obama not only pivoted on this remark to make a stronger point, he looked and sounded strong in doing so. It could hurt him; it could also be a big statement in his favor. Or it could die by the end of the weekend.
The major harm so far: it takes attention away from Bill Clinton's latest absurdity. As the Note put it, BC brought up the Bosnia Snipergate affair again,"to cram four falsehoods into 23 words: His wife, he said, "one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995." Where to start? If his telling is accurate, it depends on what the definition of "one time," "late at night," and "immediately apologized" is. (And it was 1996, not 1995.)
"Hillary Clinton actually made the comments numerous times, including at an event in Iowa on Dec. 29, and an event on Feb. 29 and one time -- bright and early in the morning -- on March 17," ABC's Sarah Amos and Eloise Harper report. "Sen. Clinton wasn't as quick with her apology as President Clinton may remember either. In fact, it took a week for her to eventually correct herself, first talking to the Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board on March 24 and again apologizing the next day in Greensboro, N.C."
Meanwhile, the Mark Penn affair continued, with Clintonian Paul Begala comparing Penn to Rumsfeld. I also ran across a very interesting statistic about PA: some 45% of the new registrants for the Democratic primary are in the Philadelphia area. That could be very good news for Obama.
But...we'll see where this latest flap goes. Obama enthusiasts online and off are worried that it could sink him in PA, and sink him, period. I'm getting to be a fatalist about all this. If this country is still so twisted that these buttons can still be pushed, then it's all over anyway. There's no hope for anybody's future.
On the plus side, he pivoted well on Rev. Wright and won that one. On the minus, there are voters in PA who still believe he's a Muslim and won't vote for him because he didn't put his hand on his heart during the Star Spangled Banner. (This is why I can't even make campaign phone calls anymore.)
As night fell on Friday, one of those instant controversies was burning up the Internet, the fax machines and emails from various campaigns and political organizations, and feeding cable news fulminators, concerning remarks Barack Obama made at a San Francisco fundraiser days ago, but quoted in an online piece at Huffington Post earlier Friday.
Here's a link to the comment, the fulminations and Obama's video rejoinder. (Here's a print version as well, but the video is worth seeing.) Judge for yourself. (And early reaction from a CNN panel, which has apparently been superceded by other vultures.) My own view: Obama not only pivoted on this remark to make a stronger point, he looked and sounded strong in doing so. It could hurt him; it could also be a big statement in his favor. Or it could die by the end of the weekend.
The major harm so far: it takes attention away from Bill Clinton's latest absurdity. As the Note put it, BC brought up the Bosnia Snipergate affair again,"to cram four falsehoods into 23 words: His wife, he said, "one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995." Where to start? If his telling is accurate, it depends on what the definition of "one time," "late at night," and "immediately apologized" is. (And it was 1996, not 1995.)
"Hillary Clinton actually made the comments numerous times, including at an event in Iowa on Dec. 29, and an event on Feb. 29 and one time -- bright and early in the morning -- on March 17," ABC's Sarah Amos and Eloise Harper report. "Sen. Clinton wasn't as quick with her apology as President Clinton may remember either. In fact, it took a week for her to eventually correct herself, first talking to the Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board on March 24 and again apologizing the next day in Greensboro, N.C."
Meanwhile, the Mark Penn affair continued, with Clintonian Paul Begala comparing Penn to Rumsfeld. I also ran across a very interesting statistic about PA: some 45% of the new registrants for the Democratic primary are in the Philadelphia area. That could be very good news for Obama.
But...we'll see where this latest flap goes. Obama enthusiasts online and off are worried that it could sink him in PA, and sink him, period. I'm getting to be a fatalist about all this. If this country is still so twisted that these buttons can still be pushed, then it's all over anyway. There's no hope for anybody's future.
On the plus side, he pivoted well on Rev. Wright and won that one. On the minus, there are voters in PA who still believe he's a Muslim and won't vote for him because he didn't put his hand on his heart during the Star Spangled Banner. (This is why I can't even make campaign phone calls anymore.)
Friday, April 11, 2008
Supers, Endorsements and Bull
There are additions and subtractions to the super-delegate totals every day. Hillary had her best day in awhile with three announcements (Obama had one) but the totals over the past day or two still favor Obama. The latest NBC count shows that Hillary's once formidable lead in Supers is now 30: 260-230. The story according to the AP is the drip-drip towards Obama.
The Obama campaign trotted out a bunch of Philadelphia city council and PA state rep endorsers today, but Hillary still has more. Kos has weighed in on the PA polls and as I suspected, he thinks SUSA is the most accurate--that Obama is behind by double digits. But it does remain an outlyer, and one poll today that counted leaners (those who are sure and those who are leaning towards a candidate) shows it single digit close. Meanwhile, Obama is on a bus tour in Indiana, where this whole thing could be decided, and he's close enough there to win it. And that's another reason his campaign may be spending big in PA--to keep Hillary worried and pinned down there. (The Sniper Fire theory?)
Okay, it's on to the bull. Issue #1: Obama has a radio ad in PA claiming he doesn't take money from oil companies. Hillary has an ad calling this deceptive because corporations can't contribute to campaigns by law. Today Bill made fun of the claim. Well, maybe the script could have been better--it's oil company lobbyists Obama doesn't take money from, but Hillary does. And Hillary has received a third more in donations from employees of energy corps.
Issue #2. A voter asked whether Billary pocketing $800,000 from a Columbia trade deal proponent while she opposes this isn't conflict of interest. Hillary just laughed--long and hard, you know, like she does. Laughed it off? Close to a million dollars? There's no problem there? Why? Because it's chicken feed if you've raked in more than $100 million? So your price is higher than that? I'm sorry--it IS a problem, and it is not funny. That's a little less than one fifth of the $5 million Hillary lent her campaign from that same account. A campaign that by all accounts is hurting for money--with debts that may soon go to the collectors. Could that be why Bill couldn't keep his hands off those ridiculous fees? It's all part of a pattern--Bill, Penn, others in her campaign, and her campaign itself. Not funny.
Issue #3. Bowling. The smartass guys, the Chris "I'm just a blue collar guy who makes $5 million a year for shooting his mouth off" Matthews crowd all put Obama down for bowling badly in Altoona on his PA bus tour. How this was bound to lose him blue collar macho votes, just so embarrassing.
Well, Walter Shapiro went back there for Salon and found out what I told you all long ago: Obama got points for showing up and for joining in. One dedicated bowler there said, "The fact that he bowled at all was good. It showed that he isn't afraid to be average." Nobody gave a damn about his score. In fact, the story corrects several mis-reported facts. His score wasn't 37, it was 47 when he left before finishing the seventh frame. And by then someone else had bowled for him--an eight year old... Those ace reporters didn't even get his shoe size right. It was reported as 13.5. But the kid who dispensed the shoes says it was 12. And he remembers. They ALL remember--that bowling alley is the most famous place in town now.
And even in that dour SUSA poll which has Hillary thumping Obama in western PA, one of the places where he showed significant strength was Altoona and Johnstown.
There are additions and subtractions to the super-delegate totals every day. Hillary had her best day in awhile with three announcements (Obama had one) but the totals over the past day or two still favor Obama. The latest NBC count shows that Hillary's once formidable lead in Supers is now 30: 260-230. The story according to the AP is the drip-drip towards Obama.
The Obama campaign trotted out a bunch of Philadelphia city council and PA state rep endorsers today, but Hillary still has more. Kos has weighed in on the PA polls and as I suspected, he thinks SUSA is the most accurate--that Obama is behind by double digits. But it does remain an outlyer, and one poll today that counted leaners (those who are sure and those who are leaning towards a candidate) shows it single digit close. Meanwhile, Obama is on a bus tour in Indiana, where this whole thing could be decided, and he's close enough there to win it. And that's another reason his campaign may be spending big in PA--to keep Hillary worried and pinned down there. (The Sniper Fire theory?)
Okay, it's on to the bull. Issue #1: Obama has a radio ad in PA claiming he doesn't take money from oil companies. Hillary has an ad calling this deceptive because corporations can't contribute to campaigns by law. Today Bill made fun of the claim. Well, maybe the script could have been better--it's oil company lobbyists Obama doesn't take money from, but Hillary does. And Hillary has received a third more in donations from employees of energy corps.
Issue #2. A voter asked whether Billary pocketing $800,000 from a Columbia trade deal proponent while she opposes this isn't conflict of interest. Hillary just laughed--long and hard, you know, like she does. Laughed it off? Close to a million dollars? There's no problem there? Why? Because it's chicken feed if you've raked in more than $100 million? So your price is higher than that? I'm sorry--it IS a problem, and it is not funny. That's a little less than one fifth of the $5 million Hillary lent her campaign from that same account. A campaign that by all accounts is hurting for money--with debts that may soon go to the collectors. Could that be why Bill couldn't keep his hands off those ridiculous fees? It's all part of a pattern--Bill, Penn, others in her campaign, and her campaign itself. Not funny.
Issue #3. Bowling. The smartass guys, the Chris "I'm just a blue collar guy who makes $5 million a year for shooting his mouth off" Matthews crowd all put Obama down for bowling badly in Altoona on his PA bus tour. How this was bound to lose him blue collar macho votes, just so embarrassing.
Well, Walter Shapiro went back there for Salon and found out what I told you all long ago: Obama got points for showing up and for joining in. One dedicated bowler there said, "The fact that he bowled at all was good. It showed that he isn't afraid to be average." Nobody gave a damn about his score. In fact, the story corrects several mis-reported facts. His score wasn't 37, it was 47 when he left before finishing the seventh frame. And by then someone else had bowled for him--an eight year old... Those ace reporters didn't even get his shoe size right. It was reported as 13.5. But the kid who dispensed the shoes says it was 12. And he remembers. They ALL remember--that bowling alley is the most famous place in town now.
And even in that dour SUSA poll which has Hillary thumping Obama in western PA, one of the places where he showed significant strength was Altoona and Johnstown.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Wednesday Wallow
Three new polls in Pennsylvania are just as contradictory as others this week. They show Obama closing the gap, and Hillary holding firm. But the pundits sense something is happening. At the Note, they list elements of the latest news--the Penn problem, the Clintons contradiction on the Columbia trade deal, etc--that could really hurt her in the Commonwealth. They note that the unions (the Teamsters especially) have a hold on this issue of trade and won't let go. If the phony flip-flop on NAFTA hurt Obama in Ohio, what will real contradiction do in PA? I just wish the pundits would zero in on the problem: Hillary says she's against the trade deal with the same people who put $800,000 into her joint account with Bill.
Howard Fineman on MSNBC notes that Hillary is campaigning in PA places where she should already be strong while Obama is venturing into her territory, and poster Daniel Nichanian at HuffPost suggests "The Obama campaign, however, is rapidly gaining confidence in its Pennsylvania numbers," which is why it is spending heavily. (There's also the reason of investment: money spent in PA now is money that won't have to be spent there in the general election, when Obama is the nominee.)
In other future primary states, the first Oregon poll shows Obama ahead by 10 points, and he remains so far ahead in North Carolina--with registrations of African Americans four times higher than before--that the MSNBCers at First Read suggest it's pretty much over, and the real question is how big Obama wins it--big enough to add so many delegates and popular votes that whatever Clinton may win in PA will be chicken feed?
This set of contests is so weird, though. I trust the North Carolina numbers, and Oregon. But I still see Hillary viable in Indiana and PA, and the poll numbers won't mean much until the last week in either. There's the debate before PA, and Hillary's patented last minute surges, which usually mean: her voters go back to her, when prompted by the machine supporting her.
Meanwhile, the "new" Hillary has yet to surface--maybe the Penn is still mightier, because she's on the radio playing the victim of a "double standard"--code to women voters--and she's on the stump claiming only she can end the war in Iraq, because Barack is all talk. Not exactly the positive campaign we're supposed to be seeing.
Three new polls in Pennsylvania are just as contradictory as others this week. They show Obama closing the gap, and Hillary holding firm. But the pundits sense something is happening. At the Note, they list elements of the latest news--the Penn problem, the Clintons contradiction on the Columbia trade deal, etc--that could really hurt her in the Commonwealth. They note that the unions (the Teamsters especially) have a hold on this issue of trade and won't let go. If the phony flip-flop on NAFTA hurt Obama in Ohio, what will real contradiction do in PA? I just wish the pundits would zero in on the problem: Hillary says she's against the trade deal with the same people who put $800,000 into her joint account with Bill.
Howard Fineman on MSNBC notes that Hillary is campaigning in PA places where she should already be strong while Obama is venturing into her territory, and poster Daniel Nichanian at HuffPost suggests "The Obama campaign, however, is rapidly gaining confidence in its Pennsylvania numbers," which is why it is spending heavily. (There's also the reason of investment: money spent in PA now is money that won't have to be spent there in the general election, when Obama is the nominee.)
In other future primary states, the first Oregon poll shows Obama ahead by 10 points, and he remains so far ahead in North Carolina--with registrations of African Americans four times higher than before--that the MSNBCers at First Read suggest it's pretty much over, and the real question is how big Obama wins it--big enough to add so many delegates and popular votes that whatever Clinton may win in PA will be chicken feed?
This set of contests is so weird, though. I trust the North Carolina numbers, and Oregon. But I still see Hillary viable in Indiana and PA, and the poll numbers won't mean much until the last week in either. There's the debate before PA, and Hillary's patented last minute surges, which usually mean: her voters go back to her, when prompted by the machine supporting her.
Meanwhile, the "new" Hillary has yet to surface--maybe the Penn is still mightier, because she's on the radio playing the victim of a "double standard"--code to women voters--and she's on the stump claiming only she can end the war in Iraq, because Barack is all talk. Not exactly the positive campaign we're supposed to be seeing.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Two Weeks to PA
It's two weeks until Pennsylvania votes. Most polls have shown Obama closing the gap on Clinton, including the respected Quinnipiac University Poll, which has Clinton's lead down to 6 points, and fading in all demographic categories, including women. BUT there's one new outlyer poll, and unfortunately it's generally the most trustworthy: the Survey USA poll which shows the gap is holding at 18 points, and Obama lagging in parts of the Commonwealth he needs.
So who to believe? The internals of these two polls are markedly different. But I'll leave it to the experts to parse them. Obama has been heard saying that anything under 10 points is his goal. In the meantime, anxious Obama PA partisans can fire themselves up with this rollicking song, made especially for the Commonwealth by country rocker Earl Pickens.
But in terms of the big picture, Clinton is still playing defense, as the "resignation" of Mark Penn turns out to be not quite that. The spectacularly unpopular Penn continues to take fire from political observers, and there are some signs that the Obama campaign may fashion this into an issue to take to voters. According to Roger Simon in Politico: In the days and weeks ahead, the Barack Obama campaign is going to pose a simple question to the undecided voters and undeclared superdelegates who will decide the Democratic nomination for president: If Hillary Clinton can’t run a good primary campaign, how is she ever going to run a good campaign against the Republicans?"
The issue is broader than that--it's also about executive ability as qualification for the job of Chief Executive and Commander in Chief--and Obama has said before that how he runs his campaign should tell people something about how he would function as President.
There were a few stories today about changes in the Clinton campaign, about staying positive, and trying to make an icon of Hillary the fighter. Meanwhile, the Obama ad blitz in PA is introducing him to more people. But it's also raising expectations. Is that election going to be driven by the distraction of Hillary's Rocky media persona, demographics, machine politics, PA stubbornness and silent racism? Or counteracted by union activism, demographic changes, grassroots organizing, the change appetite, and a focus on ending the campaign and settling on the nominee? In two weeks, we'll know. And we'll have a better idea how much longer this will go on.
As for the General and the Ambassador Show on Capitol Hill Tuesday, it was just another rerun. In the CIC sweepstakes, McCain looked like an ass, Clinton looked like a real good Senator, and I'll second Lawrence O'Donnell that Obama asked the questions you would want your Commander in Chief to ask, and in the tone you'd want him or her to have. Meanwhile, it appears the Bushites are positioning themselves to create a politically potent event in the fall: depending on which way the electoral wind is blowing, an announcement of troop withdrawls, or an attack on Iran.
It's two weeks until Pennsylvania votes. Most polls have shown Obama closing the gap on Clinton, including the respected Quinnipiac University Poll, which has Clinton's lead down to 6 points, and fading in all demographic categories, including women. BUT there's one new outlyer poll, and unfortunately it's generally the most trustworthy: the Survey USA poll which shows the gap is holding at 18 points, and Obama lagging in parts of the Commonwealth he needs.
So who to believe? The internals of these two polls are markedly different. But I'll leave it to the experts to parse them. Obama has been heard saying that anything under 10 points is his goal. In the meantime, anxious Obama PA partisans can fire themselves up with this rollicking song, made especially for the Commonwealth by country rocker Earl Pickens.
But in terms of the big picture, Clinton is still playing defense, as the "resignation" of Mark Penn turns out to be not quite that. The spectacularly unpopular Penn continues to take fire from political observers, and there are some signs that the Obama campaign may fashion this into an issue to take to voters. According to Roger Simon in Politico: In the days and weeks ahead, the Barack Obama campaign is going to pose a simple question to the undecided voters and undeclared superdelegates who will decide the Democratic nomination for president: If Hillary Clinton can’t run a good primary campaign, how is she ever going to run a good campaign against the Republicans?"
The issue is broader than that--it's also about executive ability as qualification for the job of Chief Executive and Commander in Chief--and Obama has said before that how he runs his campaign should tell people something about how he would function as President.
There were a few stories today about changes in the Clinton campaign, about staying positive, and trying to make an icon of Hillary the fighter. Meanwhile, the Obama ad blitz in PA is introducing him to more people. But it's also raising expectations. Is that election going to be driven by the distraction of Hillary's Rocky media persona, demographics, machine politics, PA stubbornness and silent racism? Or counteracted by union activism, demographic changes, grassroots organizing, the change appetite, and a focus on ending the campaign and settling on the nominee? In two weeks, we'll know. And we'll have a better idea how much longer this will go on.
As for the General and the Ambassador Show on Capitol Hill Tuesday, it was just another rerun. In the CIC sweepstakes, McCain looked like an ass, Clinton looked like a real good Senator, and I'll second Lawrence O'Donnell that Obama asked the questions you would want your Commander in Chief to ask, and in the tone you'd want him or her to have. Meanwhile, it appears the Bushites are positioning themselves to create a politically potent event in the fall: depending on which way the electoral wind is blowing, an announcement of troop withdrawls, or an attack on Iran.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Weekend Catch-Up
Barack Obama continued to campaign to good effect, as he scored more endorsements and super-delegates, and polls in PA and Indiana tightened, while his lead in North Carolina grew.
While Hillary Clinton's campaign and candidacy continues on its path of self-destruction. She told two more whoppers--one about health care, one about Iraq--and the fallout continued from her chief strategist Mark Penn's meeting to help the Columbian government lobby for passage of a trade bill she opposes, with his resignation from his main post--though it's not clear what that really means in terms of his influence. While the response to Friday's dump of Billary's tax returns may just be beginning. We have met the snipers, and they are us.
Obama's endorsements included a surprise--former Republican Senator and Independent Governor of Connecticut Lowell Weicker. The most recent super-delegate is Margaret Campbell of North Dakota, who the New York Times said was the 69th to declare for Obama since Feb. 4, while Clinton lost a net of two.
As for PA, let's face it, nobody knows. The more reliable polls show Clinton still ahead but declining, though if her past pattern holds, she will rebound somewhat near or on election day. But nobody seems certain about key constituencies. How high or low Obama seems to depend on a particular poll's judgment on how men will vote. The question of who will really turn out is a big one. Will the Mayor's advocacy for Clinton suppress the black vote in Philadelphia? Will Clinton's usual constituency vote or stay home? The role of the youth vote is controversial: this analysis in Politico downplays it, this one in the Washington Post plays it up. So the expectations game continues.
Rassmussen also has Obama up by 10 points nationally. More polls to come Monday no doubt--what fun! While Hillary has to explain Mark Penn, the $109 million, and so much more. While Obama is out there meeting people and having fun. Oh, and this quote, which hasn't gotten much notice yet--a Newsweek piece about Rahm Emanuel, just about the only uncommitted super-delegate in Illinois who has ties both to the Clintons and Obama: "This has got to come to an end by June. It has to be over and it will be over," he says, with the authority of a man who will make it over if he has to.
So that remains the question: barring the terribly unforeseen, will it be over in late April, early May, early June, late June, or early July? I'm thinking early May.
Barack Obama continued to campaign to good effect, as he scored more endorsements and super-delegates, and polls in PA and Indiana tightened, while his lead in North Carolina grew.
While Hillary Clinton's campaign and candidacy continues on its path of self-destruction. She told two more whoppers--one about health care, one about Iraq--and the fallout continued from her chief strategist Mark Penn's meeting to help the Columbian government lobby for passage of a trade bill she opposes, with his resignation from his main post--though it's not clear what that really means in terms of his influence. While the response to Friday's dump of Billary's tax returns may just be beginning. We have met the snipers, and they are us.
Obama's endorsements included a surprise--former Republican Senator and Independent Governor of Connecticut Lowell Weicker. The most recent super-delegate is Margaret Campbell of North Dakota, who the New York Times said was the 69th to declare for Obama since Feb. 4, while Clinton lost a net of two.
As for PA, let's face it, nobody knows. The more reliable polls show Clinton still ahead but declining, though if her past pattern holds, she will rebound somewhat near or on election day. But nobody seems certain about key constituencies. How high or low Obama seems to depend on a particular poll's judgment on how men will vote. The question of who will really turn out is a big one. Will the Mayor's advocacy for Clinton suppress the black vote in Philadelphia? Will Clinton's usual constituency vote or stay home? The role of the youth vote is controversial: this analysis in Politico downplays it, this one in the Washington Post plays it up. So the expectations game continues.
Rassmussen also has Obama up by 10 points nationally. More polls to come Monday no doubt--what fun! While Hillary has to explain Mark Penn, the $109 million, and so much more. While Obama is out there meeting people and having fun. Oh, and this quote, which hasn't gotten much notice yet--a Newsweek piece about Rahm Emanuel, just about the only uncommitted super-delegate in Illinois who has ties both to the Clintons and Obama: "This has got to come to an end by June. It has to be over and it will be over," he says, with the authority of a man who will make it over if he has to.
So that remains the question: barring the terribly unforeseen, will it be over in late April, early May, early June, late June, or early July? I'm thinking early May.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Testimony
I've quoted and sourced the political blog called The Field many times here. It's a relatively new one, which I've watched grow, due to the perspicacity of its main (and until recently, only) blogger, Al Giordano. The Field is a outgrowth of the organization Rural Votes, directed by Deb Kozikowski, who also happens to be a Democratic super-delegate, who says she's uncommitted.
Al posted an unusual offer: readers could try to persuade her which way to vote by their comments. Since Al (a former Edwards backer) has become an Obama advocate, and that fact has also drawn Obama people to this site, most of the comments were expected to make the case for Obama. Which they do.
Though many make crisp and cogent arguments for Obama, the personal testimonies are the most moving--and you will sense a theme right away. It isn't a new theme, but these are more real stories. (I've edited some slightly.)
From "Laura":
For many years and many elections, I have been unable to discuss politics with my mother and my step-father. They voted for G.W. Bush twice and supported the war. My step-father, a Vietnam vet, detested Kerry and believed all the swift boating tales. We finally agreed to never talk about politics.
Well, a few months ago, I visited them. My step-dad brought up Obama and told he liked what Obama had to say. I agreed, we spoke a little and then moved on. I figured he was just trying to make me feel good.
A couple of weeks later, I visited again. This time, both my mom and my step-dad sat down on their Florida porch and proceeded to tell me why they liked Obama and why they were going to vote for him over McCain. They are tired of the war, tired of the economic situation, and they were inspired by Obama. My mother, 68 years old, looked at me with the dreamy eyes of a teenager and compared Obama to JFK. They both said they would reluctantly vote for McCain if Obama failed to get the nomination.
My step-dad has since been diagnosed with bone marrow cancer. This may be his last election and he is devoted to Obama because he believes that Obama cares about people like him.
My son, who turns 18 in May, is interested in politics for the first time in his life. As a school assignment, I had him watch Obama’s speech on race and discuss it with me. My husband and I have 4 adopted children, and my son was adopted from foster care at the age of 4. Our youngest daughter is biracial. My son, in spite of learning disabilities, was able to understand and apply what Obama said to his life and to his sister’s future. My youngest, who is 7, lies her hand on my computer screen next to pictures of Obama and is amazed that he looks like her.
From "Walker":
I’m 19 years old, my best friend is 18. We’ve never voted in a presidential election. Both of us hope that our first presidential vote will be for Obama. I can’t wait to cast my (mail-in) ballot for Obama in my home state of Oregon. But hoping isn’t all Obama supporters do, despite what the critics may tell you. Combined, my friend and I have canvassed in the following states: Nevada, Colorado, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Texas, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Indiana. And many more states have received calls from my friend and I. And you can bet I’ll be workin’ in Oregon once I’m back from school. But that’s not even the most amazing part... No, the most incredible part of all of this is that my story isn’t even unique.
From Nate:
I a gay man originally from Dallas, Texas who was raised in a Christian fundamentalist household. I’ve always been at odds with my family’s political views, but this year, we’ve chosen the same candidate–Barack Obama. The country is fed up with the war, the healthcare crisis, rising energy costs, and the strained economy. It wants a choice–a real choice–to break out of the pattern and start out on a new foot with someone who is bold enough to bring new people and new ideas to the table... live in Chicago a few blocks from where the Obamas lived. I voted for him in 2002, and he’s never disappointed me. As a supporter, I’ve been able to hold my head high because of the integrity with which he runs his campaign and the courage he has shown in tackling old problems with innovative, and sometimes unpopular, approaches.
TR:
I am a 47 yr oid white woman (not that it matters) who has never donated to a campaign in my life until now. I have contributed to Barack for the last 4 months... have 2 children (adults now) 24 and 20 and even they are involved. I never ever thought they would be involved or even care. They went to see him in CT and stood in line with thousands of people. I was shocked, they actuaklly went and waited in line for hours to see a political figure? YES they did and they are actually excited. There is no way I even though they would vote in 2008 let a lone go to a rally to see someone speak... Sen Obama is bringing a whole new generation into politics early. These yuoung people are the future and the fact that they are involved at such a young age really is HUGE!!!!
Eileen:
I’m 41, Chinese-American, female, $40K earner, and I virtually gave up on politics in the early 90s. I never contributed to a political campaign, almost stopped voting, and thought I would never see a candidate who really represented my interests could gain the highest elected office. Then I read Barack Obama’s book, and I have followed with passionate interest ever since. I have been actively participating and also sent him $ after Super Tuesday and after the speech on race.
"Palgirl 2008"
I am an Independent who lives in the most republican of states(Utah). I was indifferent to this election, the choice between Hillary( who was the “inevitable” candidate), and any republican just didn’t excite me or fill me with any kind of enthusiasm. Hillary represented the worse of the Democratic party, a party that lost it’s identity, it’s direction, and it’s values.I felt that they forgot about me, an Independent in Utah, who loathed the GOP tactics, but still had some of the conservative ideas.On a cold January night, I woke up from my indifference, when a skinny kid with a funny name delivered a victory speech that spoke to me, the independent in a red state, a speech that told me that there is a better way, a better choice…and that there is so much hope for this country.I volunteered for the Obama campaign, I felt included in the process, I felt part of a movement for the first time in a very very long time.Obama has ideas, ideals, he is fresh, he is genuine, he is our chance to a fresh start from the politics of the 90s, and the politics of devisions.besides…he is likable, funny, and too damn smart ….what is wrong with having a president like that???
"Lynn":
I am from Bloomington, Indiana. I work at Indiana University. I’ve been married to Mike for 16 years. He’s a union carpenter who remodels and builds Kroger stores in Indiana and surrounding states. We have 2 sons who will be going to college in 4 and 5 years. We are trying to sell our small home to buy one with less stairs and an extra room for my Mom, who was recently injured and widowed. I grew up in a multi-racial neighborhood in Glen Park, Gary, IN. I am writing (this is like sending a message in a bottle), to ask you to support Barack Obama.
To be honest, prior to this primary I always felt my vote didn’t count. The powers that be would select someone and there was nothing I could do about it. I’d only voted a couple of times. This year, I actually intend to vote and have contributed $65 to Barack Obama’s campaign. Not only that - I visit the news websites, watch the news, watch the debates, etc, because for once I feel as though my vote counts. We are a white middle-class family. I would like Barack Obama to be president because he represents me. I agree with his views on education (parents need to shut off the tv/video games and be in touch with their kids), foreign policy (build consensus, talk to other countries and restraint is sometimes powerful), economy (no tax breaks for companies who ship out jobs to cheaper labor or who hire workers who are not paying taxes and are not here legally). I could go on, but to save you I won’t.
I hope that you will cast your vote for Barack Obama.
Michele:
I am an Obama supporter, so of course, I would like you to endorse him. I am not going to write a lengthy post with various reasons why.
Only one….Obama has somehow managed to motivate my former Republican (and somewhat bigoted), rural PA parents to register as Democrats so they can vote for him. If he can do that, he has the opportunity to be a truly great president and unite this country.
Byron:
As a working class 55 year old white male with a long held cynicism about politicians and their motives I have found myself uncharacteristically drawn into Senator Obama’s campaign. His intelligence and insight, his vision of inclusion and communal responsibility are a welcome breath of fresh air in the national political conversation and I see that I am in good and large company in feeling this way. He is the first candidate for any office to whom I have contributed money and the first candidate in whose campaign I have ever volunteered. I went to PA from NY to register new voters and will return in the next few weeks to help get the vote out.A telling sign of his ability to appeal to Americans across many divides is illustrated in my own family where my 80 year old father who has voted Republican for at least the last 45 years will vote for Barack in Novermber and my 25 year old son and his wife, when I mentioned that I had done phone-banking for the Obama campaign told me that they had also attended an Obama phone-banking party in NJ where they live. A first for them as well as for me.I think we all see an opportunity to start to get things back on track and rebuild an America we can really be proud of.
Yvonne:
I am a 57 year old, Asian American, mother of 4, grandmother of five. I am a professional, and have volunteered in my community in non-profits for many years. I was raised in Germany, Michigan, and CA, as an Army brat. As an adult I have lived on a ranch and small communities in WA State and AK. I am revealing this information, so you know that I have some real world experience.
Originally I was planning on voting for Hillary, because this Barack Candidate was a new fella, I never heard of. But to do my conscience justice, and my vote, I researched his background. I have wholeheartedly cast my vote for him due to his intellect, experience, understanding, wisdom, credibility, ability, personality, consistency, capability, and leadership. I am glad he has decided to run for President this election. Not only for our country, but for the world...
"Seth" makes a political point but one that the pundits rarely mention:
Just imagine for a moment Barrack’s first trip through the middle east and Africa. Imagine him speaking in Paris and in Jakarta. Imagine how our image as a nation in the eyes of the world - and in our own eyes - will change.
Those are some of the comments that got to me before my eyes glazed over--there were over 200. They are remarkable, but characteristic--which is in itself most remarkable. That said, I don't think (judged by one of her comments) this particular super-delegate is impressed by them. I hope this doesn't turn out to be a gimmick to increase traffic, but her one substantive comment (two others were pro forma) sounded to me like she didn't understand the significance of these kinds of stories, or their importance for the future.
I've quoted and sourced the political blog called The Field many times here. It's a relatively new one, which I've watched grow, due to the perspicacity of its main (and until recently, only) blogger, Al Giordano. The Field is a outgrowth of the organization Rural Votes, directed by Deb Kozikowski, who also happens to be a Democratic super-delegate, who says she's uncommitted.
Al posted an unusual offer: readers could try to persuade her which way to vote by their comments. Since Al (a former Edwards backer) has become an Obama advocate, and that fact has also drawn Obama people to this site, most of the comments were expected to make the case for Obama. Which they do.
Though many make crisp and cogent arguments for Obama, the personal testimonies are the most moving--and you will sense a theme right away. It isn't a new theme, but these are more real stories. (I've edited some slightly.)
From "Laura":
For many years and many elections, I have been unable to discuss politics with my mother and my step-father. They voted for G.W. Bush twice and supported the war. My step-father, a Vietnam vet, detested Kerry and believed all the swift boating tales. We finally agreed to never talk about politics.
Well, a few months ago, I visited them. My step-dad brought up Obama and told he liked what Obama had to say. I agreed, we spoke a little and then moved on. I figured he was just trying to make me feel good.
A couple of weeks later, I visited again. This time, both my mom and my step-dad sat down on their Florida porch and proceeded to tell me why they liked Obama and why they were going to vote for him over McCain. They are tired of the war, tired of the economic situation, and they were inspired by Obama. My mother, 68 years old, looked at me with the dreamy eyes of a teenager and compared Obama to JFK. They both said they would reluctantly vote for McCain if Obama failed to get the nomination.
My step-dad has since been diagnosed with bone marrow cancer. This may be his last election and he is devoted to Obama because he believes that Obama cares about people like him.
My son, who turns 18 in May, is interested in politics for the first time in his life. As a school assignment, I had him watch Obama’s speech on race and discuss it with me. My husband and I have 4 adopted children, and my son was adopted from foster care at the age of 4. Our youngest daughter is biracial. My son, in spite of learning disabilities, was able to understand and apply what Obama said to his life and to his sister’s future. My youngest, who is 7, lies her hand on my computer screen next to pictures of Obama and is amazed that he looks like her.
From "Walker":
I’m 19 years old, my best friend is 18. We’ve never voted in a presidential election. Both of us hope that our first presidential vote will be for Obama. I can’t wait to cast my (mail-in) ballot for Obama in my home state of Oregon. But hoping isn’t all Obama supporters do, despite what the critics may tell you. Combined, my friend and I have canvassed in the following states: Nevada, Colorado, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Texas, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Indiana. And many more states have received calls from my friend and I. And you can bet I’ll be workin’ in Oregon once I’m back from school. But that’s not even the most amazing part... No, the most incredible part of all of this is that my story isn’t even unique.
From Nate:
I a gay man originally from Dallas, Texas who was raised in a Christian fundamentalist household. I’ve always been at odds with my family’s political views, but this year, we’ve chosen the same candidate–Barack Obama. The country is fed up with the war, the healthcare crisis, rising energy costs, and the strained economy. It wants a choice–a real choice–to break out of the pattern and start out on a new foot with someone who is bold enough to bring new people and new ideas to the table... live in Chicago a few blocks from where the Obamas lived. I voted for him in 2002, and he’s never disappointed me. As a supporter, I’ve been able to hold my head high because of the integrity with which he runs his campaign and the courage he has shown in tackling old problems with innovative, and sometimes unpopular, approaches.
TR:
I am a 47 yr oid white woman (not that it matters) who has never donated to a campaign in my life until now. I have contributed to Barack for the last 4 months... have 2 children (adults now) 24 and 20 and even they are involved. I never ever thought they would be involved or even care. They went to see him in CT and stood in line with thousands of people. I was shocked, they actuaklly went and waited in line for hours to see a political figure? YES they did and they are actually excited. There is no way I even though they would vote in 2008 let a lone go to a rally to see someone speak... Sen Obama is bringing a whole new generation into politics early. These yuoung people are the future and the fact that they are involved at such a young age really is HUGE!!!!
Eileen:
I’m 41, Chinese-American, female, $40K earner, and I virtually gave up on politics in the early 90s. I never contributed to a political campaign, almost stopped voting, and thought I would never see a candidate who really represented my interests could gain the highest elected office. Then I read Barack Obama’s book, and I have followed with passionate interest ever since. I have been actively participating and also sent him $ after Super Tuesday and after the speech on race.
"Palgirl 2008"
I am an Independent who lives in the most republican of states(Utah). I was indifferent to this election, the choice between Hillary( who was the “inevitable” candidate), and any republican just didn’t excite me or fill me with any kind of enthusiasm. Hillary represented the worse of the Democratic party, a party that lost it’s identity, it’s direction, and it’s values.I felt that they forgot about me, an Independent in Utah, who loathed the GOP tactics, but still had some of the conservative ideas.On a cold January night, I woke up from my indifference, when a skinny kid with a funny name delivered a victory speech that spoke to me, the independent in a red state, a speech that told me that there is a better way, a better choice…and that there is so much hope for this country.I volunteered for the Obama campaign, I felt included in the process, I felt part of a movement for the first time in a very very long time.Obama has ideas, ideals, he is fresh, he is genuine, he is our chance to a fresh start from the politics of the 90s, and the politics of devisions.besides…he is likable, funny, and too damn smart ….what is wrong with having a president like that???
"Lynn":
I am from Bloomington, Indiana. I work at Indiana University. I’ve been married to Mike for 16 years. He’s a union carpenter who remodels and builds Kroger stores in Indiana and surrounding states. We have 2 sons who will be going to college in 4 and 5 years. We are trying to sell our small home to buy one with less stairs and an extra room for my Mom, who was recently injured and widowed. I grew up in a multi-racial neighborhood in Glen Park, Gary, IN. I am writing (this is like sending a message in a bottle), to ask you to support Barack Obama.
To be honest, prior to this primary I always felt my vote didn’t count. The powers that be would select someone and there was nothing I could do about it. I’d only voted a couple of times. This year, I actually intend to vote and have contributed $65 to Barack Obama’s campaign. Not only that - I visit the news websites, watch the news, watch the debates, etc, because for once I feel as though my vote counts. We are a white middle-class family. I would like Barack Obama to be president because he represents me. I agree with his views on education (parents need to shut off the tv/video games and be in touch with their kids), foreign policy (build consensus, talk to other countries and restraint is sometimes powerful), economy (no tax breaks for companies who ship out jobs to cheaper labor or who hire workers who are not paying taxes and are not here legally). I could go on, but to save you I won’t.
I hope that you will cast your vote for Barack Obama.
Michele:
I am an Obama supporter, so of course, I would like you to endorse him. I am not going to write a lengthy post with various reasons why.
Only one….Obama has somehow managed to motivate my former Republican (and somewhat bigoted), rural PA parents to register as Democrats so they can vote for him. If he can do that, he has the opportunity to be a truly great president and unite this country.
Byron:
As a working class 55 year old white male with a long held cynicism about politicians and their motives I have found myself uncharacteristically drawn into Senator Obama’s campaign. His intelligence and insight, his vision of inclusion and communal responsibility are a welcome breath of fresh air in the national political conversation and I see that I am in good and large company in feeling this way. He is the first candidate for any office to whom I have contributed money and the first candidate in whose campaign I have ever volunteered. I went to PA from NY to register new voters and will return in the next few weeks to help get the vote out.A telling sign of his ability to appeal to Americans across many divides is illustrated in my own family where my 80 year old father who has voted Republican for at least the last 45 years will vote for Barack in Novermber and my 25 year old son and his wife, when I mentioned that I had done phone-banking for the Obama campaign told me that they had also attended an Obama phone-banking party in NJ where they live. A first for them as well as for me.I think we all see an opportunity to start to get things back on track and rebuild an America we can really be proud of.
Yvonne:
I am a 57 year old, Asian American, mother of 4, grandmother of five. I am a professional, and have volunteered in my community in non-profits for many years. I was raised in Germany, Michigan, and CA, as an Army brat. As an adult I have lived on a ranch and small communities in WA State and AK. I am revealing this information, so you know that I have some real world experience.
Originally I was planning on voting for Hillary, because this Barack Candidate was a new fella, I never heard of. But to do my conscience justice, and my vote, I researched his background. I have wholeheartedly cast my vote for him due to his intellect, experience, understanding, wisdom, credibility, ability, personality, consistency, capability, and leadership. I am glad he has decided to run for President this election. Not only for our country, but for the world...
"Seth" makes a political point but one that the pundits rarely mention:
Just imagine for a moment Barrack’s first trip through the middle east and Africa. Imagine him speaking in Paris and in Jakarta. Imagine how our image as a nation in the eyes of the world - and in our own eyes - will change.
Those are some of the comments that got to me before my eyes glazed over--there were over 200. They are remarkable, but characteristic--which is in itself most remarkable. That said, I don't think (judged by one of her comments) this particular super-delegate is impressed by them. I hope this doesn't turn out to be a gimmick to increase traffic, but her one substantive comment (two others were pro forma) sounded to me like she didn't understand the significance of these kinds of stories, or their importance for the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
