Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Friday, Um, SATURDAY, I'm In Love
That's when Hillary reportedly calls it quits.
UPDATE: Grrrr...Another reason Hillary ticks me off: She changed the day for pulling out, thus screwing up my very witty post title!! I mean, come on, how many times do you get to use a Cure song for a post header? Grrr...
UPDATE II: Andrew Sullivan has a very point on why the withdrawal was moved back a day -- apparently June 6th would have been an awkward date to end a nomination fight.
|
UPDATE: Grrrr...Another reason Hillary ticks me off: She changed the day for pulling out, thus screwing up my very witty post title!! I mean, come on, how many times do you get to use a Cure song for a post header? Grrr...
UPDATE II: Andrew Sullivan has a very point on why the withdrawal was moved back a day -- apparently June 6th would have been an awkward date to end a nomination fight.
Labels: Dem 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton
"This Is Our Time"
Ideology and partisanship aside, I am glad to congratulate Barack Obama as the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. From the moment he stepped on the national scene four years ago, it was obvious he was the future of the Democrats.
The future arrived earlier than anyone could have imagined. As the saying goes, fortune favors the bold.
He did what the "experts" (including yours truly) never thought possible -- not merely beating the Clinton machine, but also ending the Boomer political culture it embodied.
For this post-boomer, black, immigrant and others of us out there, Obama's words resonate:
Barack Obama -- a new wonderful chapter in the American story.
UPDATE: An old boss summarizes the Obama moment.
|
The future arrived earlier than anyone could have imagined. As the saying goes, fortune favors the bold.
He did what the "experts" (including yours truly) never thought possible -- not merely beating the Clinton machine, but also ending the Boomer political culture it embodied.
For this post-boomer, black, immigrant and others of us out there, Obama's words resonate:
America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.This isn't an endorsement of Barack Obama for president -- yet --but it is a tip of the cap to someone who has combined remarkable charisma, a superb organization and a fundraising capability for the ages into a truly potent mixture -- enabling him to become the first black/African-American/biracial/whatever nominee of a major party.
Barack Obama -- a new wonderful chapter in the American story.
UPDATE: An old boss summarizes the Obama moment.
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
And So I Face The Final Curtain...
...regrets, she's probably had a few...
A moment approaches that I have steadfastly refused to believe would occur. But now, as the last few hours of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign tick down, a couple of musical tributes:
|
A moment approaches that I have steadfastly refused to believe would occur. But now, as the last few hours of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign tick down, a couple of musical tributes:
Labels: Dem 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton
Monday, June 02, 2008
White Entitlement
The comments at Trinity United Church that got Rev. Michael Pflegler -- and, by extension, Barack Obama -- in trouble:
The most remarkable aspect of Pflegler's performance is that if you close your eyes, there's no way you could tell that the speaker is a white Catholic priest. By every aspect of vocal tone and body language, he channels the African American preaching style. He has, in effect, channeled Jeremiah Wright.
And here is a Clinton supporter at the DNC rules committee upset over the proceedings. To Harriet Christian, Barack Obama is an "inadequate black male" who will guarantee that "John McCain is the next President of the United States." Harriet "was a second-class citizen" who is now "nothing":
Harriet Christian is, clearly, channelling Geraldine Ferraro who sparked the anti-Obama white female backlash with her comments in the winter that Obama was winning because he was "lucky" to have been born black.
And, finally this is Bill Clinton, living an entitled existence while terrified that he is to be supplanted as the the "first black president":
With respect to the Clintons, Fr. Michael Pflegler was absolutely correct. He is not engaging in racial paranoia -- a la Wright and his AIDS conspiracy theories (stipulating the 401k stuff is BS). He has accurately called out Hillary Clinton -- who has allowed her surrogates to force her supporters into believing that their "rightful" moment has been taken away from them. White women are now the aggrieved party.
And don't think that a potential canny move by John McCain might not take advantage of a race-gender rift in the Democratic Party.
|
The most remarkable aspect of Pflegler's performance is that if you close your eyes, there's no way you could tell that the speaker is a white Catholic priest. By every aspect of vocal tone and body language, he channels the African American preaching style. He has, in effect, channeled Jeremiah Wright.
And here is a Clinton supporter at the DNC rules committee upset over the proceedings. To Harriet Christian, Barack Obama is an "inadequate black male" who will guarantee that "John McCain is the next President of the United States." Harriet "was a second-class citizen" who is now "nothing":
Harriet Christian is, clearly, channelling Geraldine Ferraro who sparked the anti-Obama white female backlash with her comments in the winter that Obama was winning because he was "lucky" to have been born black.
And, finally this is Bill Clinton, living an entitled existence while terrified that he is to be supplanted as the the "first black president":
By the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, he was reduced, in a Philadelphia radio phone interview, to denying that his comments in South Carolina had been in any way racially charged, and instead insisted that the Obama camp “played the race card on me.” He sputtered, “I mean, this is just, you know … You really gotta go something to play the race card with me—my office is in Harlem.” At the end of the interview, apparently unaware that he was still on the air, Clinton was heard to say, “I don’t think I should take any shit from anybody on that, do you?” Asked the next day by another reporter what he had meant by saying the Obama campaign “was playing the race card,” Clinton would have none of it. “No, no, no, that’s not what I said,” he erupted, as if he did not know that his earlier comments had been recorded and were all over the Internet.Back in March, we noted the Clinton entitlement mentality -- and how it was being expressed in racial politics. Forgive me for quoting myself:
....
As the primaries ground on, the campaign deployed Clinton more strategically (and, perhaps, more effectively) in the kinds of smaller towns presidents never visit—47 stops in Pennsylvania, 39 in Indiana, 50 in North Carolina—where he stumped in largely white, working-class areas but, poignantly for a man once dubbed the nation’s “first black president,” not in African-American ones. That sea change in Clinton’s standing among blacks will remain a consideration in how to use him, or not use him, in the general-election campaign, no matter who the Democratic nominee.
...
His presidential pension has totaled more than $1.2 million since he left office, and despite his fantastic private-sector income, an analysis this spring by the Web site Politico showed that he has taken almost as much in taxpayer dollars for his post-presidential existence as the other two living ex-presidents—Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush—combined. Since 2001, Clinton has received more in almost every category—pension, staff salaries, supplies—than any of his colleagues in that smallest of clubs. Before Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford died, Clinton’s telephone and rent expenses came close to exceeding the comparable expenses for all four then living former presidents combined. Part of the difference is that Clinton served eight years in office, entitling him to a federal health-insurance plan and a higher pension than Ford, Carter, or Bush, and part is that his office space in Manhattan is more expensive than space in Atlanta or Houston.
Still, there is a repellent grandiosity about Clinton’s post-presidential style. Before he settled on more modest space in Harlem, Clinton had intended to rent the entire 56th floor of Carnegie Hall Tower, in Midtown, for roughly $738,000 a year. He changed course after a rash of sharp congressional and public criticism. Each year at Christmastime, Clinton sends out to supporters a slim, paperbound volume of his Selected Remarks, with a gold-embossed “Happy Holidays” greeting card replete with the requisite “bug” showing it was printed in a union shop. Last year’s number ran 25 pages and featured three thoroughly ordinary efforts: a commencement speech at Knox College, in Illinois; remarks to the Nelson Mandela Foundation, in South Africa; and comments at the 50th-anniversary commemoration of the de-segregation of Little Rock Central High School. “Since leaving office,” the first page of the booklet states, “President Clinton has devoted his time and energy to causes of both personal concern and global significance.”
Okay, so freshman senator Barack Obama currently leads the Democratic presidential nomination race in popular votes, states and delegates won! With that resume, he would, according to Hillary Rodham Clinton, be a pretty good vice presidential candidate -- for her? WTF??In what Bizarro world does the person running behind discuss concessions that the leader in the race should consider?
...Obama supporters could reasonably ask if Hillary Clinton would treat another rival --leading her by every statistical measure -- as an inferior to be considered as a running mate? Or, more bluntly, any white rival? (Yeah, Hillary likely considers everyone else her inferior, but would she adopt the same sort of condescending strategy?)
With respect to the Clintons, Fr. Michael Pflegler was absolutely correct. He is not engaging in racial paranoia -- a la Wright and his AIDS conspiracy theories (stipulating the 401k stuff is BS). He has accurately called out Hillary Clinton -- who has allowed her surrogates to force her supporters into believing that their "rightful" moment has been taken away from them. White women are now the aggrieved party.
And don't think that a potential canny move by John McCain might not take advantage of a race-gender rift in the Democratic Party.
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Don't Vote 'Til You See The Whites of Their "Ayes"
Hillary Clinton makes the case that she should be the nominee because she has whitest, uh, widest appeal:
Hillary, however, is in good company. Karl Rove essentially agrees in today's Journal:
Actually, none of this is too surprising. I have long had the belief that, in the back of the Clintons' mind(s), there exists the ultimate "nuclear option": They are willing to risk the Democratic Party's long monolithic grip on the black vote (by denying Obama the nomination). Indeed, they may be willing to sacrifice as much as 25 percent of the black vote with an eye toward cobbling together a new general election coalition of more working class whites -- and Latinos. As my erstwhile colleague Ryan Sager has noted, the fertile ground for Democrats right now is the Mountain West states -- Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico. Hillary and Obama split those four states -- but she has consistently done better among Latinos (that fact alone probably explains poll numbers showing her doing better than Obama against McCain in Florida).
With most of the South (including their huge numbers of "non-essential" black votes in red states) -- again, not counting Florida -- conceded to the Republicans, nominee Hillary would count on all the blue states Kerry won, plus picking up Iowa, Ohio, Arkansas and possibly Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico.
Of course, she would have to get the nomination first.
Regardless, African-Americans shouldn't be too surprised at this. The latest Census numbers demonstrate that Latinos are now the largest "minority" in the country. Hillary -- as will future Democratic candidates -- is already calculating, a la Barry Goldwater, to go "hunting where the ducks are." If trading a bunch of black votes for more Latinos and downscale whites results in a victory, so be it. Besides, the thinking would go, the rest of the blacks will vote Democrat anyway (where else they gonna go?).
Cynical? Yep. Cold-blooded? Definitely. Completely insane? No, not really.
Democrats though who are confident that "this thing is over" had better think again. A candidate who -- in an on-the-record-interview making the case for why she should lead her party -- broadcasts her intent to willingly toss aside a fair segment of the most loyal voting bloc of that party does not sound like someone preparing to close up shop.
As Rove says in his WSJ piece:
|
There's a pattern alright. This is the "eggheads and African-Americans" critique that Paul Begala pushed a couple of days ago -- with vigorous pushback from Donna Brazile. Though, "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" is a nice added touch. Obviously, Obama's base of intellectuals and blacks are either not working -- or not "hard-working."Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
Hillary, however, is in good company. Karl Rove essentially agrees in today's Journal:
The primary has created a deep fissure in Democratic ranks: blue collar, less affluent, less educated voters versus the white wine crowd of academics and upscale professionals (along with blacks and young people). Mr. Obama runs behind Mrs. Clinton's numbers when matched against Mr. McCain in key industrial battleground states. Less than half of Mrs. Clinton's backers in Indiana and North Carolina say they would support Mr. Obama if he were the nominee. In the most recent Fox News poll, two-and-a-half times as many Democrats break for Mr. McCain (15%) as Republicans defect to Mrs. Clinton (6%) and nearly twice as many Democrats support Mr. McCain (22%) as Republicans back Mr. Obama (13%). These "McCainocrat" defections could hurt badly.Note, however, that Mr. Rove is smart enough not to actually use the word "white" -- except when referring to wine. Usually, the strategist is the one who is supposed to be the blunt analyst, while the candidate speaks in more subtle terms. Then again, whoever said Hillary Clinton was subtle.
Actually, none of this is too surprising. I have long had the belief that, in the back of the Clintons' mind(s), there exists the ultimate "nuclear option": They are willing to risk the Democratic Party's long monolithic grip on the black vote (by denying Obama the nomination). Indeed, they may be willing to sacrifice as much as 25 percent of the black vote with an eye toward cobbling together a new general election coalition of more working class whites -- and Latinos. As my erstwhile colleague Ryan Sager has noted, the fertile ground for Democrats right now is the Mountain West states -- Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico. Hillary and Obama split those four states -- but she has consistently done better among Latinos (that fact alone probably explains poll numbers showing her doing better than Obama against McCain in Florida).
With most of the South (including their huge numbers of "non-essential" black votes in red states) -- again, not counting Florida -- conceded to the Republicans, nominee Hillary would count on all the blue states Kerry won, plus picking up Iowa, Ohio, Arkansas and possibly Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico.
Of course, she would have to get the nomination first.
Regardless, African-Americans shouldn't be too surprised at this. The latest Census numbers demonstrate that Latinos are now the largest "minority" in the country. Hillary -- as will future Democratic candidates -- is already calculating, a la Barry Goldwater, to go "hunting where the ducks are." If trading a bunch of black votes for more Latinos and downscale whites results in a victory, so be it. Besides, the thinking would go, the rest of the blacks will vote Democrat anyway (where else they gonna go?).
Cynical? Yep. Cold-blooded? Definitely. Completely insane? No, not really.
Democrats though who are confident that "this thing is over" had better think again. A candidate who -- in an on-the-record-interview making the case for why she should lead her party -- broadcasts her intent to willingly toss aside a fair segment of the most loyal voting bloc of that party does not sound like someone preparing to close up shop.
As Rove says in his WSJ piece:
Almost everything we think we know right now will be revised and even overturned during the next six months. This has been a race in which conventional wisdom has often been proven wrong. The improbable or thought-to-be impossible has happened with regularity. It has created a boom market for punditry and opinion offering, and one of the grandest possible spectacles for political junkies in decades. Hold on to your hat. It's going to be one heck of a ride through Nov. 4.Indeed.
Labels: Dem 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton, race
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
End-iana?
Well, my long-standing prediction -- that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee -- may have finally collapsed. Barack Obama -- the Muhammad Ali of politics (floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee) -- clobbered HRC in North Carolina and (as of 12:21 AM) has reduced her lead in Indiana to the tightest of margins.
Obama's NC win completely wiped out HRC's popular vote gains from Pennsylvania. The vote is still coming in from Lake County, Indiana and the best she can hope for is a one or two percent win.
I still maintain that one never counts a Clinton out until they're completely and totally out (cue final scene in Fatal Attraction). But with news that Hillary cancelled her morning news show appearances and Tim Russert reporting that the Obama campaign is starting to make tentative conversations about vetting potential running mates, the writing is clearly on the wall.
Still, we are concluding one of the most bizarre ten year cycles in American history (impeachment, 2000 election, a First Lady elected to the Senate, 9/11, Iraq, etc.) and nothing should be taken fo granted.
UPDATE: CNN finally calls Indiana for Hillary Clinton, by barely 23,000 votes.
CORRECTION: Update edited to reflect correct margin and description of HRC's win.
UPDATE II: Shortly after I made the above Muhammad Ali allusion to Obama, Tom Edsall posted the following over at The Huffington Post:
|
Obama's NC win completely wiped out HRC's popular vote gains from Pennsylvania. The vote is still coming in from Lake County, Indiana and the best she can hope for is a one or two percent win.
I still maintain that one never counts a Clinton out until they're completely and totally out (cue final scene in Fatal Attraction). But with news that Hillary cancelled her morning news show appearances and Tim Russert reporting that the Obama campaign is starting to make tentative conversations about vetting potential running mates, the writing is clearly on the wall.
Still, we are concluding one of the most bizarre ten year cycles in American history (impeachment, 2000 election, a First Lady elected to the Senate, 9/11, Iraq, etc.) and nothing should be taken fo granted.
UPDATE: CNN finally calls Indiana for Hillary Clinton, by barely 23,000 votes.
CORRECTION: Update edited to reflect correct margin and description of HRC's win.
UPDATE II: Shortly after I made the above Muhammad Ali allusion to Obama, Tom Edsall posted the following over at The Huffington Post:
In the universe of political clichés, she is on life support, her oxygen choked off, her knees buckling, unable to stanch the bleeding, down for an eight count, on the ropes, praying for the bell to ring, desperate to get her wind back.
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton
Thursday, May 01, 2008
God Forsaken
Via Andrew Sullivan, Mike Huckabee has an interesting take on the Rev. Wright insanity:
Wright arose this week to, in effect, say to Obama, "Not so fast, boy, you're not going to advance in the way you want without giving due obeisance to the black church -- the historic foundation of our community."
It's not surprising that Wright would say that "Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy." Because, he's not. He is an ally -- not necessarily in the racist, paranoiac view of America (though, clearly, there is some crossover there) -- but in their shared belief that religion must be the controlling power within the black community. The corollary to this, of course, is that religious leaders must be the first among equals in the black power structure.
Barack Obama is a mortal threat to that notion and he is paying the price for it.
Over at National Review, Lisa Schiffren quotes two e-mailers who assert that Obama isn't "mature" enough to be president. One e-mailer says, "He's not yet a full adult." I disagree. I think Obama has been far more straightforward as to who he is and where he comes from -- flaws and all -- than just about any other presidential candidate (with the possible exception of five-books-written John McCain). No, if anyone or anything needs to have the "not yet a full adult" charge sent in that direction, it may be Jeremiah Wright -- by extension -- the black community.
It is one thing for the community to place all of its political eggs in one basket by overwhelmingly supporting the Democratic Party. It is something far different to allow a black "leader" to sabotage the efforts of the most mainstream black figure to rise out of that party -- just because he chooses not to sufficiently, ahem, "worship" at the feet of leaders of the foremost community insitution of the previous two centuries. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. took the community very far by daring to dream. But subsequent leaders haven't moved the ball much further. Obama had -- and still has -- an amazing opportunity to take that next great step. And who goes out of his way to destroy that dream? If a black minister still has that much power, then the black community must assess its own political maturity that it has permitted a member of the social institution that led it for so long to destroy perhaps its greatest political hope.
How ironic that, after so many predictions last year that the religious right would create chaos for Republican presidential candidates, it has been a figure from the religious black left that has seemingly blown up the Democratic nomination process?
|
"His (Obama's) campaign is not being derailed by his race, it's being derailed by a person who doesn't want him to prove that we have made great advances in this country," Huckabee told reporters.Huckabee's almost gets it. I would go even further. This isn't just about how far race relations have progressed in America. This is also about what form -- and what institutions -- black progress will take and use in the years again. As my colleague Fred Dicker reported in Wednesday's paper, there appears to be real enmity -- not just from Jeremiah Wright, but from others associated with the Trinity church -- that Obama hasn't sufficiently "boosted" the church's role in the black community:
"Jeremiah Wright needs for Obama to lose so he can justify his anger, his hostile bitterness against the United States of America," Huckabee said.
The Post has learned. "After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn't know about Jeremiah's views during those years, that he wasn't familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn't hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal," said the source, who has deep roots in Wright's Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.In other words, Obama by omission or otherwise, has somehow "dissed" the black church. The church, of course, has been a major institution within the black community for centuries. While Obama has been a member of the Trinity congregation, it is clear that he represents a new generation of black politician. He is not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. And, by that, I don't mean that he is not some race "confidence man" or agitator. I mean, Obama is a secular, professional, polished, mainstream politician. He is a secular elected official.
"Jeremiah is trying to defend his congregation and the work of his ministry by saying what he is saying now," the source added.
"Jeremiah doesn't care if he derails Obama's candidacy or not . . . He knows what he's doing. Obviously, he's not a dumb man. He knows he's not helping."
The source spoke yesterday about Wright's motivation for thrusting himself back into the news, the day after the pastor appeared at the National Press Club on Monday and embarrassed Obama by accusing the United States of terrorism.
Wright has said the reason he has begun granting interviews and making public appearances now is that he wants to defend black churches.
Wright arose this week to, in effect, say to Obama, "Not so fast, boy, you're not going to advance in the way you want without giving due obeisance to the black church -- the historic foundation of our community."
It's not surprising that Wright would say that "Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy." Because, he's not. He is an ally -- not necessarily in the racist, paranoiac view of America (though, clearly, there is some crossover there) -- but in their shared belief that religion must be the controlling power within the black community. The corollary to this, of course, is that religious leaders must be the first among equals in the black power structure.
Barack Obama is a mortal threat to that notion and he is paying the price for it.
Over at National Review, Lisa Schiffren quotes two e-mailers who assert that Obama isn't "mature" enough to be president. One e-mailer says, "He's not yet a full adult." I disagree. I think Obama has been far more straightforward as to who he is and where he comes from -- flaws and all -- than just about any other presidential candidate (with the possible exception of five-books-written John McCain). No, if anyone or anything needs to have the "not yet a full adult" charge sent in that direction, it may be Jeremiah Wright -- by extension -- the black community.
It is one thing for the community to place all of its political eggs in one basket by overwhelmingly supporting the Democratic Party. It is something far different to allow a black "leader" to sabotage the efforts of the most mainstream black figure to rise out of that party -- just because he chooses not to sufficiently, ahem, "worship" at the feet of leaders of the foremost community insitution of the previous two centuries. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. took the community very far by daring to dream. But subsequent leaders haven't moved the ball much further. Obama had -- and still has -- an amazing opportunity to take that next great step. And who goes out of his way to destroy that dream? If a black minister still has that much power, then the black community must assess its own political maturity that it has permitted a member of the social institution that led it for so long to destroy perhaps its greatest political hope.
How ironic that, after so many predictions last year that the religious right would create chaos for Republican presidential candidates, it has been a figure from the religious black left that has seemingly blown up the Democratic nomination process?
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential, Jeremiah Wright, race, Religion and Politics
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Wright's Wrongs
Salon asked a few folks -- including your humble blogger -- about Rev. Wright and what Obama should do about him. No, I didn't have an answer for the latter part of the request.
Will Obama's press conference today be enough? I fear not. Obama's Philadelphia speech was the best he could do to respond to the Wright that appeared on YouTube. To some extent, a large segment of the public was willing to accept that Wright may have been taken out of context. Alas, the Wright of Monday was seen fully in context.
|
Will Obama's press conference today be enough? I fear not. Obama's Philadelphia speech was the best he could do to respond to the Wright that appeared on YouTube. To some extent, a large segment of the public was willing to accept that Wright may have been taken out of context. Alas, the Wright of Monday was seen fully in context.
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential, Jeremiah Wright
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Wright Stuff
I ran into Ralph Reed at the White House Correspondents Dinner this weekend. In response to a question as to whether McCain would have problems with the GOP base, Reed said (paraphrased), "No. They're already coming home. It has nothing to do with McCain. Jeremiah Wright has united the religious conservative base."
Wright's speech this morning at the National Press Club (carried by the three major cable stations and C-SPAN) -- following up on his stemwinder to the NAACP Sunday -- may have thrown Barack Obama a political lifeline in its affirmation of the history and values of the black church. While assertive, he had clear intellectual foundations from which he was speaking.
However, his combative and dismissive Q&A may have cut that lifeline and left Obama swimming for his political survival. Wright said several times that various parts of the black community and culture are "not inferior, just different."
As Public Enemy once said, "Too black, too strong."
White Americans don't have to think that Barack Obama -- as a presidential candidate -- is racially inferior to deem that the tradition to which he is part is too "different" to support as a presidential candidate.
Arguably, his least helpful statement was that Obama would say what he had to "as a politician." While he may have been making a contrast with what he (Wright) says as a pastor, the effect, I believe, undermines the ecumenical and spiritually lifting tone of Obama's much-credited speech on race. In short, Wright reduced the Obama speech to, in a phrase, "just words."
Not good.
|
Wright's speech this morning at the National Press Club (carried by the three major cable stations and C-SPAN) -- following up on his stemwinder to the NAACP Sunday -- may have thrown Barack Obama a political lifeline in its affirmation of the history and values of the black church. While assertive, he had clear intellectual foundations from which he was speaking.
However, his combative and dismissive Q&A may have cut that lifeline and left Obama swimming for his political survival. Wright said several times that various parts of the black community and culture are "not inferior, just different."
As Public Enemy once said, "Too black, too strong."
White Americans don't have to think that Barack Obama -- as a presidential candidate -- is racially inferior to deem that the tradition to which he is part is too "different" to support as a presidential candidate.
Arguably, his least helpful statement was that Obama would say what he had to "as a politician." While he may have been making a contrast with what he (Wright) says as a pastor, the effect, I believe, undermines the ecumenical and spiritually lifting tone of Obama's much-credited speech on race. In short, Wright reduced the Obama speech to, in a phrase, "just words."
Not good.
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential, Jeremiah Wright, race
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Bubbas For The Bro
Ho-hum. Another primary, another Obama blow-out. Even the AP is getting bored by the Democratic nomination process:
Especially disappointing is this number -- 62 percent:
This is currently a prediction-free blog, but given that large parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania mirror Wisconsin, Barack Obama has to feel increasingly confident of his chances in those states over the next several weeks.
UPDATE: It's a perfect 10-0 run for Obama with his landslide win in his "third" home-state win in Hawaii. Obviously, this is the key to winning a nomination -- make sure you can make plausible relationship/residence connections to lots of places (Obama also won in Kansas and Illinois). On the other hand, Mitt Romney was 3-0 in Utah, Michigan and Massachusetts and that didn't work out so well in the long run...
|
Barack Obama cruised past a fading Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Wisconsin primary Tuesday night, gaining the upper hand in a Democratic presidential race for the ages."Fading" -- hardly an uplifting phrase for the former first lady, but pretty apt after the 9-0 nightmare Hillary Rodham Clinton has experienced in the two weeks (only two weeks!) since Super Tuesday.
It was Obama's ninth straight victory over the past three weeks - with results unknown from the Hawaii caucuses - and left the former first lady in desperate need of a comeback in a race she long commanded as front-runner.
"The change we seek is still months and miles away," Obama told a boisterous crowd in Houston in a speech in which he also pledged to end the war in Iraq in his first year in office.
"I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home," he declared.
Especially disappointing is this number -- 62 percent:
[Obama] did very well among white men with 62% of their vote to Clinton's 36%. Remember those Edwards voters? At least among white men, it looks like at least some of them are going for Obama. Clinton, though, still took a plurality of white women (53%-45%).Obama increased the strong numbers among white men that he started registering last week in Maryland and Virginia. White guys -- well, white Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent guys -- seem to be very comfortable voting for the black guy in the race rather than the woman. Whether that is sexist or just a judgment on this woman is open to debate. What is clear, however, there's no way Hillary can overcome the sort of expanding coalition Obama is creating if she only beats him by three points among her supposed base, white women.
Obama also made inroads with one core constituency of Clinton's: white working-class voters (households making under $50k/yr). Clinton still edged him out 51% to 48%, but Obama had a strong showing. He won white households making more than $50k/yr -- 56% to 48%.
This is currently a prediction-free blog, but given that large parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania mirror Wisconsin, Barack Obama has to feel increasingly confident of his chances in those states over the next several weeks.
UPDATE: It's a perfect 10-0 run for Obama with his landslide win in his "third" home-state win in Hawaii. Obviously, this is the key to winning a nomination -- make sure you can make plausible relationship/residence connections to lots of places (Obama also won in Kansas and Illinois). On the other hand, Mitt Romney was 3-0 in Utah, Michigan and Massachusetts and that didn't work out so well in the long run...
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton
Friday, February 15, 2008
This One's Gotta Leave A Mark
Any minor happiness that Hillary Clinton might have gained from finally having New Mexico called for her (though it doesn't really change the delegate margin), must be completely crushed by the announcement from Rep. John Lewis -- one of her supporters -- that he would cast his superdelegate vote for Barack Obama.
Josh Marshall makes a couple of good observations on why this particular switch hurts Hillary Clinton:
There's also a sense that this decision might be indication of more fallout from the Clintons' disastrous South Carolina strategy and the raw divisiveness it engendered -- including Bill's dismissal of the results by comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson.
A very tough development for Hillary -- however, as we've said before, in this particular year the "emerging conventional wisdom" gets proven wrong time and again. The current one is that "Hillary is dead; it's definitely going to be Obama." While my posts earlier this week were 1) reflective of Obama's obvious wins and momentum and 2) feeling the "Obama wave", I think it is important to recognize that a lot can happen between now and the last Democratic primary in June.
UPDATE: Back and forth today on whether Rep. Lewis has indeed switched his vote. Ben Smith and Greg Sargent try to explain it all. Actually, to clarify, the question is whether Lewis' endorsement of Hillary, but his decision to cast his superdelegate vote for Obama qualifies as a switch in support. Got that?
|
Josh Marshall makes a couple of good observations on why this particular switch hurts Hillary Clinton:
In the thick of a campaign it is easy to overrate the importance of an endorsement or a political hit. But it is difficult to overstate the significance of John Lewis' switch from the Clinton to Obama camps because it is a devastating blow on two or three levels wrapped together in a single person. Lewis' historic and moral stature in the African-American community and in the modern Democratic party bulks very large. “In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,” Lewis told the Times. “Something is happening in America, and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap.” This is a curious statement as he seems to be suggesting that his earlier endorsement of Clinton was based on his own failure to set his sights sufficiently high. What's more, the willingness of a high-profile politician not simply to endorse one candidate but to switch from one to another (at least in terms of who he
believes he'll vote for as a super delegate) is a powerful sign that a tipping
point is at hand.
But the most immediate and significant import is Lewis's signal that whatever the basis of his original endorsement he is unwilling to join Clinton in carving a path to the nomination through the heart of the Democratic party. The tell in Lewis's announcement is that he is not technically withdrawing his endorsement from Hillary, at least not yet. He is saying that as a super delegate (which is by virtue of being a member of Congress) he plans to vote for Obama at the convention. On Wednesday the Clinton camp started pushing hard on the idea that a delegate is a delegate and if they need to pack on super delegates to overwhelm Obama's edge with elected delegates then so be it. A win is a win is a win. I take this as Lewis saying he just won't sign on for that.
There's also a sense that this decision might be indication of more fallout from the Clintons' disastrous South Carolina strategy and the raw divisiveness it engendered -- including Bill's dismissal of the results by comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson.
A very tough development for Hillary -- however, as we've said before, in this particular year the "emerging conventional wisdom" gets proven wrong time and again. The current one is that "Hillary is dead; it's definitely going to be Obama." While my posts earlier this week were 1) reflective of Obama's obvious wins and momentum and 2) feeling the "Obama wave", I think it is important to recognize that a lot can happen between now and the last Democratic primary in June.
UPDATE: Back and forth today on whether Rep. Lewis has indeed switched his vote. Ben Smith and Greg Sargent try to explain it all. Actually, to clarify, the question is whether Lewis' endorsement of Hillary, but his decision to cast his superdelegate vote for Obama qualifies as a switch in support. Got that?
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton, John Lewis
Monday, February 11, 2008
"The One"
For those so inclined, take a look/listen at Barack Obama's speech from last Saturday's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Virginia.
The man always "gives good speech", but this one was, to me, in a class by itself. For one thing, there seemed to be more "meat on the bones." He put more policy specificity into this one. Indeed, it was a bit more noticeable that he worked from a prepared text this time.
The substance, body language and tone send a unified message: He is starting to believe that he is can see the light at the end of the tunnel of the primary process. There's a confidence, not over-confidence, coming out of him. He knows that even among Democrats, policy detail is the one thing Hillary Clinton has over him (that's why she challenged him to more debates; they are her strength). And so, he's decided to expand the rhetorical/strategic playing field. By incorporating more detail-oriented prose into his powerful poetry, he's now showing that he's happy to play on Clinton's turf.
Anyway, this is the first time that I really thought that this guy may actually the one to knock Clinton off.
The speech is 20 minutes long, but well worth watching.
UPDATE: Oops! Just to show that even the best campaigns can't be perfect, Ed Morrissey points out a rather embarrassing picture in an Obama local office in Texas.
|
The man always "gives good speech", but this one was, to me, in a class by itself. For one thing, there seemed to be more "meat on the bones." He put more policy specificity into this one. Indeed, it was a bit more noticeable that he worked from a prepared text this time.
The substance, body language and tone send a unified message: He is starting to believe that he is can see the light at the end of the tunnel of the primary process. There's a confidence, not over-confidence, coming out of him. He knows that even among Democrats, policy detail is the one thing Hillary Clinton has over him (that's why she challenged him to more debates; they are her strength). And so, he's decided to expand the rhetorical/strategic playing field. By incorporating more detail-oriented prose into his powerful poetry, he's now showing that he's happy to play on Clinton's turf.
Anyway, this is the first time that I really thought that this guy may actually the one to knock Clinton off.
The speech is 20 minutes long, but well worth watching.
UPDATE: Oops! Just to show that even the best campaigns can't be perfect, Ed Morrissey points out a rather embarrassing picture in an Obama local office in Texas.
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential
Thursday, February 07, 2008
The Lady Stumbles
After winning the most states Tuesday -- and effectively tying Hillary Rodham Clinton for the delegate lead -- Barack Obama has raised more than $7 million -- to go with the $32 million haul he made in January (in most years, $32 million would be a fantastic quarter).
Clinton, meanwhile, is stuck loaning herself $5 million. But, as Ed Morrissey wonders, is it her own money?
A far darker cloud though hovers -- several top Clinton staffers are going without pay for a month. When this happened to the Giuliani campaign one month ago, it signalled the beginning of the end.
Hillary Clinton couldn't be in quite that bad shape -- could she?
|
Clinton, meanwhile, is stuck loaning herself $5 million. But, as Ed Morrissey wonders, is it her own money?
The massive loan may not seem unusual given Mitt Romney's self-funding, but Mitt has plenty of his own money. Where did Hillary get $5 million to loan a presidential campaign? Bill and Hillary have done well on the speaking circuit, and Bill recently got $20 million or so for backing out of his partnership from Ron Burkle. At the time, speculation had Bill wanting to eliminate any potential conflicts between Burkle's business and Hillary's election.Given that all sorts of candidates -- from John Kerry to Mitt Romney to John McCain -- have loaned themselves money at difficult points in their campaigns, this shouldn't necessarily raise suspicion. Except that this is the Clintons -- and money/fundraising always is "different" for them.
Now, however, one has to wonder whether Burkle may have attempted to float money into Hillary's campaign while bypassing campaign-finance regulations. Did the $20 million, which came just two weeks ago, actually represent a fair-market settlement for Clinton's services and ownership stake in Yucaipa? Or did Burkle inflate it in order to allow Hillary to "loan" herself $5 million to keep pace with a surging Obama campaign?
A far darker cloud though hovers -- several top Clinton staffers are going without pay for a month. When this happened to the Giuliani campaign one month ago, it signalled the beginning of the end.
Hillary Clinton couldn't be in quite that bad shape -- could she?
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Super Tuesday Scoreboard
Clinton (8 states): Arkansas, Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee (plus American Samoa)
Obama (12): Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah
McCain (9): Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma
Huckabee (5): Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia
Romney (7): Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah
McCain's wipeout of Romney in California is likely the nail in the coffin for the former Massachusetts governor. But there's no reason why Mike Huckabee shouldn't push for a spot on the ticket. He won solidly Republican states while McCain's greatest strength was in states that he will have difficulty carrying in November (though Missouri is a significant win). Meanwhile,winning the Golden State (to go along with her own New York and New Jersey) -- with a huge share of the Latino vote, a feat she replicated elsewhere -- definitely gives Hillary Rodham Clinton some bragging rights in terms of the big states.
However, Obama's strength in "purple" states like Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado can't be overestimated -- to say nothing of red, heavily white-population states. Furthermore, Obama won the most states of the night. The Democrats are going to be tussling for quite awhile.
*New Mexico not called as of 2:30 AM.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall readers discuss the racial voting patterns in states where Obama won:
UPDATE II: Obama apparently won the day in delegates!
|
Obama (12): Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah
McCain (9): Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma
Huckabee (5): Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia
Romney (7): Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah
McCain's wipeout of Romney in California is likely the nail in the coffin for the former Massachusetts governor. But there's no reason why Mike Huckabee shouldn't push for a spot on the ticket. He won solidly Republican states while McCain's greatest strength was in states that he will have difficulty carrying in November (though Missouri is a significant win). Meanwhile,winning the Golden State (to go along with her own New York and New Jersey) -- with a huge share of the Latino vote, a feat she replicated elsewhere -- definitely gives Hillary Rodham Clinton some bragging rights in terms of the big states.
However, Obama's strength in "purple" states like Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado can't be overestimated -- to say nothing of red, heavily white-population states. Furthermore, Obama won the most states of the night. The Democrats are going to be tussling for quite awhile.
*New Mexico not called as of 2:30 AM.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall readers discuss the racial voting patterns in states where Obama won:
First, TPM Reader JS ...This should, sadly, not come as a surprise. While the Obama campaign was infuriated by Bill Clinton's dismissive statement that Obama won South Carolina -- like Jesse Jackson -- the fact is that this racial pattern was first noticed during the '88 Jackson campaign. Jackson's highest share of the white vote was in states that had very small black populations -- like Vermont and Alaska. Plus ca la change, plus ca la meme.Just a quick trend to note: Obama seems to do well in states where
there are either a huge number of black voters or virtually no black voters at all. In states with large urban populations, and ethnic suburban populations, he doesn't do as well. He also doesn't do as well in interior southern states. In other words, either a state needs to have white voters who have very little experience with ethnic or racial politics, or it needs to have an extremely large black population, in order to vote for Obama.
UPDATE II: Obama apparently won the day in delegates!
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential, GOP 2008 President, Hillary Clinton, John McCain
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Super Tuesday Madness
Well, as we said one month ago, "Anyone who thinks they know how the presidential nominating process is going to play out is full of sh**." Super Tuesday is producing more than a few surprises.
Barack Obama is looking strong in Hillary Clinton's backyard, both Connecticut and New Jersey. He destroyed Clinton in Georgia. Serious warning sign for Sen. Clinton: Obama got 43 percent of the white vote in the Peach State. If he replicates that elsewhere, he has a very good chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. In addition to Georgia, networks have called Illinois (natch!) for Obama and Oklahoma and Tennessee for Clinton.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side -- surprise! Mike Huckabee isn't dead yet. He won the West Virginia caucus with some wheeler-dealing with John McCain (an alliance that may yet come back to bite McCain in the butt). Georgia is currently too close to call. Huckabee is doing very well in in the south -- belying Romney's claim that he's only a spoiler. Indeed, the Huck-man could win five states -- which explains why he decided to be the third man who stayed in the race (in contrast to John Edwards on the Democratic side).
These are 6:00 PM GOP exit polls. These are the 6:00 PM Democratic polls.
UPDATE: So much for the exit polls. Fox calls Hillary a winner in New Jersey.
UPDATE II: Networks call New York and, oh yes, Massachusetts handily for Hillary. That Kennedy "magic" works again! Yeah, I called that big endorsement a mistake -- and I meant it! Meanwhile, CNN projects Alabama for Obama (who also takes Delaware -- on Fox, Juan Williams had to explain to a puzzled Brit Hume that Delaware has the 8th highest black percentage in the country). McCain wins Delaware, New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut and New York.
UPDATE III: And here's something that must warm the hearts of Mitt Romney supporters: John McCain's home state of Arizona is too close to call on the Republican side (9:40 -- the polls have been closed for 40 minutes). All other "home" states for individual candidates were called by networks within minutes of poll closings (including "both" of Hillary's adopted home states -- Arkansas and New York).
|
Barack Obama is looking strong in Hillary Clinton's backyard, both Connecticut and New Jersey. He destroyed Clinton in Georgia. Serious warning sign for Sen. Clinton: Obama got 43 percent of the white vote in the Peach State. If he replicates that elsewhere, he has a very good chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. In addition to Georgia, networks have called Illinois (natch!) for Obama and Oklahoma and Tennessee for Clinton.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side -- surprise! Mike Huckabee isn't dead yet. He won the West Virginia caucus with some wheeler-dealing with John McCain (an alliance that may yet come back to bite McCain in the butt). Georgia is currently too close to call. Huckabee is doing very well in in the south -- belying Romney's claim that he's only a spoiler. Indeed, the Huck-man could win five states -- which explains why he decided to be the third man who stayed in the race (in contrast to John Edwards on the Democratic side).
These are 6:00 PM GOP exit polls. These are the 6:00 PM Democratic polls.
UPDATE: So much for the exit polls. Fox calls Hillary a winner in New Jersey.
UPDATE II: Networks call New York and, oh yes, Massachusetts handily for Hillary. That Kennedy "magic" works again! Yeah, I called that big endorsement a mistake -- and I meant it! Meanwhile, CNN projects Alabama for Obama (who also takes Delaware -- on Fox, Juan Williams had to explain to a puzzled Brit Hume that Delaware has the 8th highest black percentage in the country). McCain wins Delaware, New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut and New York.
UPDATE III: And here's something that must warm the hearts of Mitt Romney supporters: John McCain's home state of Arizona is too close to call on the Republican side (9:40 -- the polls have been closed for 40 minutes). All other "home" states for individual candidates were called by networks within minutes of poll closings (including "both" of Hillary's adopted home states -- Arkansas and New York).
Labels: Dem 2008 Presidential, GOP 2008 President
Saturday, February 02, 2008
The Lady Moves Up
Andrew Sullivan observes that that Hillary gains in Gallup's daily national tracking poll. That confirms my belief that she "won" the Thursday debate by outdueling Obama on substance -- while also appearing, ahem, "likeable -- enough."
|
Labels: Dem 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton
Friday, February 01, 2008
Barack & Hill Go Hollywood
There may not be an Academy Awards this year (because of the writers strike), but at least the Kodak Center in L.A. was put to good use: With the requisite Hollywood royalty in the audience (hardly the type of spectacle that identifies Democrats as the Party of the People), the last two remaining Democratic presidential contenders squared off.
In a quick overview, it is quite obvious that Barack Obama is a better speaker, while Hillary Clinton is a better debater. He had an outstanding opening statement -- generous to both the departed Edwards and to his once-and-future friendship with Hillary -- and reflective of the historic nature of his and Hillary's candidacies. Hillary's own opening statement was fine -- she mentioned Edwards as well -- but it was far more prosaic.
However, as the debate continued, it is very clear that Clinton is the master of policy minutiae. That likely turns some people off. Indeed, one could say that it might even be a bad idea to have a president that well versed in all the intricate details of policy. As a couple of people (including Carl Bernstein after the debate) noted, Hillary sounded more like the Secretary of HHS than a president when she was describing the differences between hers and Obama's health plans.
Still, this is her strongest asset. The best way to demonstrate that she is more than just Bill Clinton's wife -- and trading on his name (a point alluded to near the end of the debate) -- is to show that she has a genuine mastery of the details. Given the near-universal criticism of the Bush administration from a competence standpoint, having a presidential candidate demonstrate that they are well-versed in policy isn't necessarily a bad thing. Furthermore, using her '94 health-care debacle as a "lesson learned" trope gives Hillary Clinton the opportunity to show a humility that is clearly absent in her abject refusal to call her Iraq war vote a "mistake."
Of course, that is her vulnerability and Obama's strength. He turned her clear skill on policy detail -- and the "experience" that suggested -- right back on her when it came to the Iraq vote. He contrasted her "experience" with his "judgment" that he was able to figure out that the Iraq war authorization was a bad idea even when he was still a state senator. Obama rightly knows that he is clearly on the right side of this issue as far as it goes for nearly all Democrats, many independents and a healthy minority of Republicans.
This issue is further a weakness for Hillary Clinton because just as she is a commanding figure on the stage, looking strong and confident, while talking health-care, her body language betrays her -- she looks defensive when trying to explain her war vote.
However, she still stuck to her guns -- so to speak -- and continued to refuse to call her vote a "mistake." This has to be more than just simple "stubbornness" on Clinton's part. I believe that she believes the political fallout is far greater for a woman admitting to a mistake on an issue of war and national security than it is for a man. John Edwards could admit that the Iraq War vote was a "mistake," and it could be accepted (for all the good it did him in the primaries). But, Clinton can't. It's not just the simple act of "admitting a mistake." It touches upon definite negative stereotypes of women, that Hillary is trying to navigate around. The "emotional moment" she pulled in New Hampshire took her right up to the line -- she notably did NOT actually cry. She moistened up, but no actual tear came down her face. If it had, she would have been toast.
Similarly, an admission of mistake opens the door to snide comments such as "women are indecisive" or "it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind." A president can, conceptually, admit a mistake -- but a commander-in-chief (as Hillary referred to herself) has to be self-assured. For Hillary, letting the "m"-word escape -- in this particular area national security and war -- would be the true mistake.
That said, both did wiell throughout the debate. In contrast to the South Carolina event, civility and politeness were the order of the day. That helped both candidates: Obama didn't fall into the "Rick Lazio" trap and look like he was bullying the woman on the stage. At the same time, she didn't appear harsh or too histrionic (i.e. bitchy).
In response to a viewer-generated question on why it wouldn't be better to elect a president who could run the country like a business, both got off a couple of good lines at Romney's (and Bush's expense): "We've had someone who ran as a CEO/MBA president -- and look what we got," said Hillary. (She also threw in a broader, philosophical response on why the country wasn't a "business" that sounded about right).
Obama's line though was more pointed and witty. Noting how much the former Massachusetts governor has personally spent on his own campaign, Obama said, "Gov. Romney hasn't gotten much return on his investtment, so I would happily match my management style over the last year with his." Good thinking on his feet. Obama was also the first person to start throwing zingers at John McCain -- inverting the attack-Hillary-because-she's-going-to-be-the-Democratic-nominee style from previous GOP debates.
Some might not like Hillary's response to the "dynasty" question ("It took a Clinton to clean up after a Bush before and it might take another Clinton to clean up after this Bush." However, what else can she say? It might be risky, but she could use a variation of what she said when running for her Senate re-election in 2006: Refusing to say that she would serve out her term (i.e., not run for president), Clinton would say, "Voters can take that fact into account when they get into the voting booth." It carries a bit more risk this time, but Hillary can say, "I'm running for president. I have my own skills. If you are uncomfortable with who I am because my husband was president -- and two Bushes preceeded us -- well that is one more factor as you make your choice. I can't change who I am."
But would Hillary ever have the guts to say that?
Hillary, in my view, won New Hampshire with her performance (and Obama's rare slip in decorum) in the ABC debate the weekend before. If she stems the apparent Obama wave that has been building since South Carolina -- and wins the lion's share of the delegates on Super Tuesday -- it will be because of this Hollywood debate. I think both candidates did well, but there was more pressure on Clinton to balance the likeability and knowledgability quotient.
I think she pulled it off.
UPDATE: Debate transcript here.
|
In a quick overview, it is quite obvious that Barack Obama is a better speaker, while Hillary Clinton is a better debater. He had an outstanding opening statement -- generous to both the departed Edwards and to his once-and-future friendship with Hillary -- and reflective of the historic nature of his and Hillary's candidacies. Hillary's own opening statement was fine -- she mentioned Edwards as well -- but it was far more prosaic.
However, as the debate continued, it is very clear that Clinton is the master of policy minutiae. That likely turns some people off. Indeed, one could say that it might even be a bad idea to have a president that well versed in all the intricate details of policy. As a couple of people (including Carl Bernstein after the debate) noted, Hillary sounded more like the Secretary of HHS than a president when she was describing the differences between hers and Obama's health plans.
Still, this is her strongest asset. The best way to demonstrate that she is more than just Bill Clinton's wife -- and trading on his name (a point alluded to near the end of the debate) -- is to show that she has a genuine mastery of the details. Given the near-universal criticism of the Bush administration from a competence standpoint, having a presidential candidate demonstrate that they are well-versed in policy isn't necessarily a bad thing. Furthermore, using her '94 health-care debacle as a "lesson learned" trope gives Hillary Clinton the opportunity to show a humility that is clearly absent in her abject refusal to call her Iraq war vote a "mistake."
Of course, that is her vulnerability and Obama's strength. He turned her clear skill on policy detail -- and the "experience" that suggested -- right back on her when it came to the Iraq vote. He contrasted her "experience" with his "judgment" that he was able to figure out that the Iraq war authorization was a bad idea even when he was still a state senator. Obama rightly knows that he is clearly on the right side of this issue as far as it goes for nearly all Democrats, many independents and a healthy minority of Republicans.
This issue is further a weakness for Hillary Clinton because just as she is a commanding figure on the stage, looking strong and confident, while talking health-care, her body language betrays her -- she looks defensive when trying to explain her war vote.
However, she still stuck to her guns -- so to speak -- and continued to refuse to call her vote a "mistake." This has to be more than just simple "stubbornness" on Clinton's part. I believe that she believes the political fallout is far greater for a woman admitting to a mistake on an issue of war and national security than it is for a man. John Edwards could admit that the Iraq War vote was a "mistake," and it could be accepted (for all the good it did him in the primaries). But, Clinton can't. It's not just the simple act of "admitting a mistake." It touches upon definite negative stereotypes of women, that Hillary is trying to navigate around. The "emotional moment" she pulled in New Hampshire took her right up to the line -- she notably did NOT actually cry. She moistened up, but no actual tear came down her face. If it had, she would have been toast.
Similarly, an admission of mistake opens the door to snide comments such as "women are indecisive" or "it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind." A president can, conceptually, admit a mistake -- but a commander-in-chief (as Hillary referred to herself) has to be self-assured. For Hillary, letting the "m"-word escape -- in this particular area national security and war -- would be the true mistake.
That said, both did wiell throughout the debate. In contrast to the South Carolina event, civility and politeness were the order of the day. That helped both candidates: Obama didn't fall into the "Rick Lazio" trap and look like he was bullying the woman on the stage. At the same time, she didn't appear harsh or too histrionic (i.e. bitchy).
In response to a viewer-generated question on why it wouldn't be better to elect a president who could run the country like a business, both got off a couple of good lines at Romney's (and Bush's expense): "We've had someone who ran as a CEO/MBA president -- and look what we got," said Hillary. (She also threw in a broader, philosophical response on why the country wasn't a "business" that sounded about right).
Obama's line though was more pointed and witty. Noting how much the former Massachusetts governor has personally spent on his own campaign, Obama said, "Gov. Romney hasn't gotten much return on his investtment, so I would happily match my management style over the last year with his." Good thinking on his feet. Obama was also the first person to start throwing zingers at John McCain -- inverting the attack-Hillary-because-she's-going-to-be-the-Democratic-nominee style from previous GOP debates.
Some might not like Hillary's response to the "dynasty" question ("It took a Clinton to clean up after a Bush before and it might take another Clinton to clean up after this Bush." However, what else can she say? It might be risky, but she could use a variation of what she said when running for her Senate re-election in 2006: Refusing to say that she would serve out her term (i.e., not run for president), Clinton would say, "Voters can take that fact into account when they get into the voting booth." It carries a bit more risk this time, but Hillary can say, "I'm running for president. I have my own skills. If you are uncomfortable with who I am because my husband was president -- and two Bushes preceeded us -- well that is one more factor as you make your choice. I can't change who I am."
But would Hillary ever have the guts to say that?
Hillary, in my view, won New Hampshire with her performance (and Obama's rare slip in decorum) in the ABC debate the weekend before. If she stems the apparent Obama wave that has been building since South Carolina -- and wins the lion's share of the delegates on Super Tuesday -- it will be because of this Hollywood debate. I think both candidates did well, but there was more pressure on Clinton to balance the likeability and knowledgability quotient.
I think she pulled it off.
UPDATE: Debate transcript here.
Labels: Barack Obama, debates, Dem 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Post...
|Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Tears of A Crown
On second thought...
Anyone who thinks they know how the presidential nominating process is going to play out is full of sh**.
Two months ago, John McCain's political obituary had been written; Rudy Giuliani led the national polls and Mitt Romney was the runaway leader in New Hampshire.Two days ago, Hillary Clinton's political obituary was being written: The dynasty was over, the queen was dead; the question was not whether Hillary should withdraw, but under what circumstances; George W. Bush was asking President Obama if he would consider starting a year early.
And then people started voting.
Today, we have winners who, not much more than a year ago, everyone expected to be the frontrunners: John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Will they be the eventual nominees?
Who knows?
However, the path to the GOP nomination for John McCain looks slightly more clear than Hillary's path to the Democratic nod. If McCain can beat Romney in Michigan and Huckabee in South Carolina, it's pretty clear sailing. But if Huckabee wins SC, what then? Rudy Giuliani's "chaos theory" suddenly looks like it might bear fruit in Florida and Super Tuesday. On the Democratic side, this looks like it could be a binary race between Obama and Clinton. Sorry, John Edwards.
However, a few things New Hampshire showed:
1) Despite everything, maybe the Clinton name still means something in the Granite State (or maybe the MACHINE is better at stealing elections there, as one partisan Democrat hinted to me tonight).
2) Hillary Clinton is never so dangerous as when she is portrayed as the victim. Her popularity increased post-Monica; she "won" a debate -- and essentially the election -- in 2000 when Rick Lazio pushed a paper in herface and demanded that she "sign it! Sign it!" In that light, Hillary's "emotional moment" on Monday may have touched a chord with undecided women who decided to support her at the last moment.
3) On a related note, there was the Saturday debate: Hillary was asked about the fact that more voters "liked" Obama more than her. She responded, smiling, "That hurts my feelings." The crowd chuckled, Hillary said, "Barack is a likeable guy." But Obama almost sneered, "You're likeable enough, Hillary." It was an unnecessary snide line, delivered at a moment when he could have been gracious (Something like, "Senator, of course, you're likeable, and you have made history as the first First Lady to win office in her own right. Yes, I'd like to make history of my own, but we certainly praise the service you've given this nation.") . Instead, his actual abrupt comment was against character: At a moment when Hillary was being warm/likeable (Obama-like?), while he was being cold and, well, bitchy -- characteristics often associated with Hillary.
4) Finally, it would be dishonest not to mention the elephant in the room -- race. On MSNBC, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and NBC political analyst/polling expert Chuck Todd raised what is often referred to as the "Bradley effect": The Obama internal polls gave him a lead of 14 points (similar to the last CNN poll). Hillary's internal polls gave Obama an eleven point lead. Yet, she won by three points. The "Bradley effect" refers to the 1982 gubernatorial race of African American Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley who the polls showed leading by double digits the night before election day: He lost narrowly to white Republican George Deukmajian. In 1989, African American Lt. Gov. Doug Wilder was leading the Virginia gubernatorial race by about ten points; he won by less than one percent. A similar series of events occured in the New York mayoral race that year with Democrat David Dinkins leading Republican Rudy Giuliani in heavily Democratic New York City by double digits .
To be blunt, in contests involving black candidates, there often appears a hidden (or deceptive) vote in polling that works to the disadvantage of the black candidates. It doesn't always occur: Harold Ford's loss in Tennessee U.S. Senate race in 2006 was certainly within the margin of error of pre-election polls. But when all the pre-election polls were wrong (and not just by the margin of error) as they were in New Hampshire, one has to entertain at least the possibility of the "Bradley effect."
I don't know if that occurred Tuesday. But any punditswho say they definitely know what is going on this year are, well...you know.
UPDATE: Well, hey there! Karl Rove agrees with me on the debate moment! And here's the video:
|
Anyone who thinks they know how the presidential nominating process is going to play out is full of sh**.
Two months ago, John McCain's political obituary had been written; Rudy Giuliani led the national polls and Mitt Romney was the runaway leader in New Hampshire.Two days ago, Hillary Clinton's political obituary was being written: The dynasty was over, the queen was dead; the question was not whether Hillary should withdraw, but under what circumstances; George W. Bush was asking President Obama if he would consider starting a year early.
And then people started voting.
Today, we have winners who, not much more than a year ago, everyone expected to be the frontrunners: John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Will they be the eventual nominees?
Who knows?
However, the path to the GOP nomination for John McCain looks slightly more clear than Hillary's path to the Democratic nod. If McCain can beat Romney in Michigan and Huckabee in South Carolina, it's pretty clear sailing. But if Huckabee wins SC, what then? Rudy Giuliani's "chaos theory" suddenly looks like it might bear fruit in Florida and Super Tuesday. On the Democratic side, this looks like it could be a binary race between Obama and Clinton. Sorry, John Edwards.
However, a few things New Hampshire showed:
1) Despite everything, maybe the Clinton name still means something in the Granite State (or maybe the MACHINE is better at stealing elections there, as one partisan Democrat hinted to me tonight).
2) Hillary Clinton is never so dangerous as when she is portrayed as the victim. Her popularity increased post-Monica; she "won" a debate -- and essentially the election -- in 2000 when Rick Lazio pushed a paper in herface and demanded that she "sign it! Sign it!" In that light, Hillary's "emotional moment" on Monday may have touched a chord with undecided women who decided to support her at the last moment.
3) On a related note, there was the Saturday debate: Hillary was asked about the fact that more voters "liked" Obama more than her. She responded, smiling, "That hurts my feelings." The crowd chuckled, Hillary said, "Barack is a likeable guy." But Obama almost sneered, "You're likeable enough, Hillary." It was an unnecessary snide line, delivered at a moment when he could have been gracious (Something like, "Senator, of course, you're likeable, and you have made history as the first First Lady to win office in her own right. Yes, I'd like to make history of my own, but we certainly praise the service you've given this nation.") . Instead, his actual abrupt comment was against character: At a moment when Hillary was being warm/likeable (Obama-like?), while he was being cold and, well, bitchy -- characteristics often associated with Hillary.
4) Finally, it would be dishonest not to mention the elephant in the room -- race. On MSNBC, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and NBC political analyst/polling expert Chuck Todd raised what is often referred to as the "Bradley effect": The Obama internal polls gave him a lead of 14 points (similar to the last CNN poll). Hillary's internal polls gave Obama an eleven point lead. Yet, she won by three points. The "Bradley effect" refers to the 1982 gubernatorial race of African American Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley who the polls showed leading by double digits the night before election day: He lost narrowly to white Republican George Deukmajian. In 1989, African American Lt. Gov. Doug Wilder was leading the Virginia gubernatorial race by about ten points; he won by less than one percent. A similar series of events occured in the New York mayoral race that year with Democrat David Dinkins leading Republican Rudy Giuliani in heavily Democratic New York City by double digits .
To be blunt, in contests involving black candidates, there often appears a hidden (or deceptive) vote in polling that works to the disadvantage of the black candidates. It doesn't always occur: Harold Ford's loss in Tennessee U.S. Senate race in 2006 was certainly within the margin of error of pre-election polls. But when all the pre-election polls were wrong (and not just by the margin of error) as they were in New Hampshire, one has to entertain at least the possibility of the "Bradley effect."
I don't know if that occurred Tuesday. But any punditswho say they definitely know what is going on this year are, well...you know.
UPDATE: Well, hey there! Karl Rove agrees with me on the debate moment! And here's the video:
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential, GOP 2008 President, Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
The Swift-Boating of Obama?
How ugly could it get as the empire crumbles?
Possibly very ugly according to Tom Edsall:
Talk about lose-lose: If a Hillary-connected 527 launches a search-and-destroy mission against Obama and tears him down enough to allow Hillary to come back, it would be the end of her. Even if she got the nomination, black voters would be so turned off, she could forget any hope of winning the election. She would then be doubly villified among Democrats -- for denying a viable black candidate the nomination and giving a winnable election to Republicans. And that's not even counting an even scarier scenario -- that an enterprising billionaire independent might approach a disgruntled Obama as a potential running mate. And, yeah, under that circumstance, it would indeed be possible for a Hillary-led ticket to finish third.
|
Possibly very ugly according to Tom Edsall:
[S]ome top independent expenditure groups supporting Clinton have been exploring the creation of an anti-Obama "527 committee" that would take unlimited contributions from a few of Clinton's super-rich backers and from a handful of unions to finance television ads and direct mail designed to tarnish the Illinois Senator's image.
Three groups conducting independent expenditure campaigns in behalf of Clinton - Emily's List, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) - have explored
the possibility of trying to put together a multi-million dollar effort privately dubbed the Anybody-But-Obama 527 Committee, but they have run into problems finding any Democratic operative willing to become the director of a campaign against the man who now is the odds-on favorite to become the party's nominee.
"You might make some good money in the short term, but your chances of getting any Democratic contracts in the future, especially if Obama wins, would be zilch," said one operative. "I wouldn't go there."
The effectiveness of a 527 that goes negative was demonstrated by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which attacked John Kerry's war record in the 2004 campaign. Spokespersons for both Emily's List and the AFT both adamantly denied to the Huffington Post any involvement with plans to create an anti-Obama 527 group.
But in fact, the complexities of federal election law have made it illegal for them to be involved. The discussions about the possible creation of such a 527 committee were held among people active in the separate independent expenditure (IE) campaigns conducted by AFT, Emily's List and AFSCME. By law, there can be no communication between those working on an IE campaign and officials of the parent organization putting the cash into the campaign. Officials of AFT and Emily's list acknowledged that they have had no contact with the staff members running their IE drives.
AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee declared: "We're not about the business of swift-boating any Democratic candidate. We will not be party to any kind of effort of this type. Our campaign is about promoting Hillary Clinton - not tearing down any other candidate. Our number one priority is having the strongest Democratic candidate to take back the White House in November."
Sources familiar with the discussions about the creation of an anti-Obama 527 said that some of the Clinton campaign's major fundraisers have separately been exploring another similar proposal, but have not gotten very far yet.
"These things (527s) are not that easy to get rolling. There is a long way between talking and doing," said one source familiar with setting up 527 operations.
Federal tax law requires regular disclosure of both the donors to 527 organizations and the expenditures they make, so it is not possible for such committees to keep secret the identity of supporters and staff.
Talk about lose-lose: If a Hillary-connected 527 launches a search-and-destroy mission against Obama and tears him down enough to allow Hillary to come back, it would be the end of her. Even if she got the nomination, black voters would be so turned off, she could forget any hope of winning the election. She would then be doubly villified among Democrats -- for denying a viable black candidate the nomination and giving a winnable election to Republicans. And that's not even counting an even scarier scenario -- that an enterprising billionaire independent might approach a disgruntled Obama as a potential running mate. And, yeah, under that circumstance, it would indeed be possible for a Hillary-led ticket to finish third.
Labels: Barack Obama, Dem 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton
