Casey Endorses Obama

Another wine-sipping elitist gets on the Obama bandwagon, in the person of Bob Casey, Jr.

This highlights what is, perhaps, the ultimate madness of the Clinton superdelegate strategy -- all the superdelegate momentum is against her. She built up a huge lead months and months ago back when she was "inevitable" and has monotonically lost ground since then. And yet the whole premise of her campaign is that there's a secret wellspring of Clinton support among undeclared supers who are just dying to overturn the results of the primaries and give her the nomination.

Comments

She is a Clinton. Clintons don't lose. You ignore this at your peril.

Posted by Curtis | March 28, 2008 1:27 PM

monotonically

Is this even a real word?

Posted by Pooh | March 28, 2008 1:30 PM

"yet the whole premise of her campaign is that there's a secret wellspring of Clinton support among undeclared supers who are just dying to overturn the results of the primaries and give her the nomination"

I guess it depends on what the meaning of is, is.

Posted by A Moderate | March 28, 2008 1:35 PM

I'm not sure it was terrifically monotonic, given the Ohio results. But your larger point is surely true. When will our long national Clinton-inspired nightmare end?

Posted by ncprosecutor | March 28, 2008 1:35 PM

Monotonically appears to be a math term. Since I placed out, I haven't taken a math class since I was 17 and I've never regretted it, so I can't explain it to you.

I don't really understand why the superdel's, who are fairly clearly not a secret wellspring of Clinton support, don't go ahead and point this out at this point. Then again, maybe we're beginning to see the first inklings of this now.

Posted by Jen | March 28, 2008 1:37 PM

Unlikely you'd find a six pack in Bob Casey Jr's fridge. Still a helpful catch for Obama.

"Monotonically?" Yeah baby ... that's the vocabulary skill I'm here for!

Posted by Undecided | March 28, 2008 1:38 PM

It is a word, but it's doesn't quite fit. It means all of the change over time has been in one direction. Now, obviously Clinton's superdelegate lead has been decreasing steadily but there have been days when she got new superdelegate commitments and he didn't.

Fun fact: The last time a Clinton lost a primary or general campaign was 1980 when Bill lost the governorship of Arkansas. (He won it back in the next election.) Think about that next time somebody tries to argue how weak a candidate Obama is.

Posted by neil | March 28, 2008 1:41 PM

That's a pretty big deal. Casey is kinda the anti-Rendell in PA politics, dating back to at least the 2002 primary for governor. Casey actually won something like 57 of the 67 counties in that primary, but Rendell ran up the score in the Philly area and beat him handily. And, of course, Casey beat Santorum handily, in part by eroding Santorum's Western PA base, meaning he didn't just win Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), but also a bunch of other counties throughout Western PA. Anyway, my point is that I think Casey has some serious pull outside of SE PA, and thus is a very helpful person for Obama to get.

Posted by DTM | March 28, 2008 1:42 PM

Casey's endorsement -- and his joining with Obama on the campaign tour through Pennsylvania -- will help
Obama in western PA and rural white areas.

And my understanding is that Nancy Pelosi has just told Haim Saban and company to go piss up a rope re Superdelegates coronation of Hillary.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 1:43 PM

the whole premise of her campaign is that there's a secret wellspring of Clinton support among undeclared supers

No.

The premise of her campaign is that, while she can't win as things stand currently, the unexpected happens often in politics. As long as she's in the race, any catastrophe that brings down the Obama campaign, makes her the candidate.

Unlikely? Sure. But then, so was Governor Paterson.

It's perfectly rational and I'm not even sure it's bad for the Democrats. Just think of her as the lieutenant nominee.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | March 28, 2008 1:45 PM

Lemuel:
Your analogy would be sound if Paterson had been the one pushing the "Spitzer-Hooker" angle. Instead, Hillary is trying to act like Roger Stone while looking like David Paterson.

Posted by max | March 28, 2008 1:50 PM

I agree with lemuel pitkin's take: If she can't convince the supers that Barack is unelectible in the general electtion, then her hope is that something unexpected will take him down -- whereupon she'll be waiting in the wings as the Party's savior. Stranger things have happened.

Posted by Zither | March 28, 2008 1:53 PM

Matt, I don't think Hillary's that dumb nor do I think she thinks the superdelegates are. Here's how I would phrase the current Hillary strategy vis a vis supers:

Don't get behind Obama because come November you'll be running on a ticket with a crazy black man at the top.

The fact that it's Hillary who will have been largely responsible for turning Obama into that crazy black man is irrelevant. And indeed, it should be. Hillary knows that if there's one thing that characterizes Democratic party elites, it's spinelessness, and her only viable political strategy (if it is indeed viable) is based on that assumption. Which is a sound one.

Posted by Marshall | March 28, 2008 1:56 PM

Lemuel, if the premise of her campaign now is just to be the standby nominee, she wouldn't be launching these attacks on the presumptive nominee. The lieutenant governor isn't expected to make assassination attempts on the governor.

Clinton could suspend her campaign and be the standby just as well. If she doesn't want to do that, she could at least concentrate on educating people about the reality of McCain, stop praising McCain, avoid legitimizing right-wing outfits, and shut up about Wright.

Posted by KCinDC | March 28, 2008 1:58 PM

The only interesting race left in the Democratic primary is to see which of the candidates can capture a contiguous line of states from the east coast to the west coast.

HRC's easiest route is to win North Carolina. If she can't do this, she needs to win either the combination of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky or Pennsylvania, Indiana and Kentucky.

Unfortunately, in large part because of Hillary's brilliant early block with Tennessee, Obama's only route runs through Kentucky.

I hope the Obama campaign decides to heavily contend for Kentucky since it's quite likely the Clinton campaign will offer "contiguous line of states from east to west coast" as their next rationale for picking a nominee.

Posted by Great White Snark | March 28, 2008 2:03 PM

Clinton long ago cemented the number two position as far as pledged delegates is concerned. Indeed, if she wanted to be the Plan B candidate in the event something happens to Obama before the convention, she is probably just hurting herself at this point.

Posted by DTM | March 28, 2008 2:09 PM

KCinDC: Exactly. If she really were just playing the role of standby nominee, I'd still have my respect for her. Standby nominee is an important position; it prevents disaster and keeps the presumptive nominee honest. But the truth is that when she could be helping the Democratic party, she's been hurting it. Shame on Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Adam Villani | March 28, 2008 2:10 PM

Casey may have done this as a "Fuck you!" to Rendell. Since the Casey family hails from Scranton, this could undercut Hillary's ability to exploit the Rodham family's ties to the Scranton area.

Posted by jonp72 | March 28, 2008 2:11 PM

The only interesting race left in the Democratic primary is to see which of the candidates can capture a contiguous line of states from the east coast to the west coast. Posted by Great White Snark | March 28, 2008 2:03 PM

That's really funny. It is like a game of Presidential Primary Risk.

Posted by Bubba | March 28, 2008 2:12 PM

Lemuel:
Yeah, I have to say that if this were the Clinton campaign's perspective, they would be behaving differently. I would have no problem with a positive Clinton campaigned oriented towards sustaining a different option for the Dem party. It might cost something in terms of McCain directed funding, but it would be more respectable than continuing to attack Obama and float ideas on how they'd like to subvert the nomination process.

Posted by mpowell | March 28, 2008 2:15 PM

Clinton's strategy is not to sew up victory with the superdelegates. She's many things but not a fool. So she must have another strategy. I think she hopes to weaken Obama until it becomes the conventional wisdom to question his electability. Then she won't ask the superdelegates to overrule the pledged delegates, instead she'll ask the superdelegates to abstain from voting on the first ballot so that all delegates have an equal voice in assessing which potential nominee would be most likely to win in November.

Posted by henry evans | March 28, 2008 2:16 PM

Undecided:
It's not that you'll find a case of beer in Casey's fridge. It is the fact that Casey's "base" is supposed to be the working man part of PA Democrats. It's the area that was/is perceived to be Hillary's strength. If Casey's endorsement encourages people to give Obama a 2nd look, her goose is cooked. The one thing I see very little talked about is the fact that if Obama can somehow pull out a PA win, then Hillary will have no choice but to pack it in.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 28, 2008 2:19 PM

I discuss this matter today as well at http://huntingdonpike.blogspot.com

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | March 28, 2008 2:20 PM

Well, since "controlled experiments" are very useful in determining reality, I think this Casey endorsement of Obama is excellent news.

The important question is whether Obama can win "enough" of the non-black vote in November. From what I've read, Rendell (Clinton's big backer) only won the Democratic primary because of a huge black vote, while Casey is the great, almost national hero of the sort of moderate/conservative whites that the Democratic candidate needs to get "enough" of in November. His strong and early backing of Obama gives Obama a "best case" shot of cutting into Hillary's current PA lead in that determative demographic slice.

Obama will be massively outspending Hillary in PA, he has weeks to campaign there, AND he now has the greatest hero among PA white Democrats campaigning for him. Sounds like a pretty fair test to me...

Posted by RKU | March 28, 2008 2:21 PM

Henry, I don't understand that strategy. Thinking she'll be to flip enough of Obama's pledged delegates that she can win on the second ballot seems crazier than expecting to get an overwhelming share of the undeclared superdelegates.

Posted by KCinDC | March 28, 2008 2:26 PM

Fun fact: Bob Casey Jr. appeared on a game show I created just for him.

Posted by TLB | March 28, 2008 2:34 PM

RKU,

I get you like to move the goalposts on Obama, but let's take a step back. Clinton doesn't just bring Rendell to the table in PA, she also brings herself (with some Scranton roots plus Northeast Corridor appeal), and Bill Clinton (a former President who won Pennsylvania, and who also has lots of appeal in Appalachia in general). John McCain will have exactly none of that going for him, plus he is not a Democrat.

So, I submit that Clinton doing well in this contest (and she is going to do well) pretty much tells you nada about how John McCain will do among these same voters in November.

Posted by DTM | March 28, 2008 2:34 PM

I discuss this matter today as well at http://huntingdonpike.blogspot.com

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | March 28, 2008 2:38 PM

KC, the strategy could only work if it really became the conventional wisdom to question Obama's electability. So far that part of the strategy isn't working either. So it's not like Clinton has much of a chance. But whatever chance she has, it can't be based on wrapping up the nomination by having the superdelegates overrule the pledged delegates (which even if achievable would likely wreck Clinton's November prospects).

Posted by henry evans | March 28, 2008 2:41 PM

Alright, I'll say it: Casey for VP?

How would he compare/contrast with the other likely Veep candidates--assuming Obama were to get the Dem nomination?

Posted by Moonlight | March 28, 2008 2:45 PM

KCinDC: Exactly. If she really were just playing the role of standby nominee, I'd still have my respect for her. Standby nominee is an important position; it prevents disaster and keeps the presumptive nominee honest.

Not to mention, she already pretty much is the standby nominee. All that launching attacks does is weaken that position. The more she attacks, the more people she turns off, and the more people there are who'd like to see someone else (Gore?) step in if disaster befalls Obama.

Posted by Seitz | March 28, 2008 2:47 PM

1) Normally, the Rendall machine's support for Hillary would have a strong influence -- but much of Ed Rendall's influence is based here in Philadelphia.

The population of Philadelphia is roughly 43 percent Afro-American and 45 percent White and I don't see Rendall persuading blacks -- and black leaders -- to go against Obama. The local DNC member -- Carol Ann Campbell -- has already endorsed Obama. See http://cbs3.com/topstories/Barak.Obama.Superdelegate.2.657729.html

2) The Obama campaign is also active here in the Main Line Suburbs -- I'm one of the little people and I've already been contacted and asked to help.

3) Hillary's hope was in western PA and the rural countryside. Casey's endorsement is a serious blow.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 2:48 PM

Don Williams,

I obviously mostly agree, but it should be noted Rendell also did well against Casey in the suburbs of Philly. So, I still think he can help Clinton even if she loses Philly proper, but as noted, I generally agree that getting Casey is a big deal for Obama.

Posted by DTM | March 28, 2008 3:00 PM

DTM:

I get you like to move the goalposts on Obama...

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm certainly not arguing that Obama has to actually WIN Pennsylvania with Casey's help to meet some test, or even stay within a few points.

Let's step back a bit. I'd say that Hillary is a VERY unappetizing candidate for most of the sort of PA white Democrats who really like Casey---she's not exactly the greatest personal hero among all those rural NRA members and Right-to-Lifers.

But if Obama+Casey+huge advertising bucks can't stay within at least about 20 points of Hillary among PA white Democrats, what does that tell any "Reality People" about Obama's chances in November? That's the experiment I'm talking about.

Posted by RKU | March 28, 2008 3:06 PM

Perhaps I'm taking Great White Snark's game a little too seriously, but I don't think West Virginia or Indiana matter in it. WV makes a bridge between Kentucky and Pennsylvania, but Ohio already plays that role. IN doesn't matter, either; it doesn't gain anything for a candidate who holds both KY and OH.

Clinton needs either NC or both PA and KY. Otherwise, she has to count MI, throw in Ontario as well (why not) and get to the coast through NY.

Posted by Kraz | March 28, 2008 3:07 PM

RKU - ...test of what? General election viability? Oh please, not this tired argument again...

Obama's out-spending Hillary in PA says two things: One, he can raise more money than her, and two, she has a 20-point head start.

I expect PA to be closer than 10 points, Hillary to hinge her hopes on IN and NC, and then to drop out after May 6th. Over that period of time, supers will trickle in at about a rate of one every day or two, and she'll be financially bled to death. The media narrative will dry out her fundraising.

I personally am eagerly awaiting results of the March fundraising efforts.

Posted by socctty | March 28, 2008 3:11 PM

Thanks for the correction, Kraz. West Virginia and Indiana are indeed irrelevant to a Clinton "contiguous line from east coast to west coast" victory.

For my own calculations, I rendered Michigan, Florida, Texas and Nevada as "stoppers" for both candidates since they either don't count or were ambiguous in determining a winner.

Posted by Great White Snark | March 28, 2008 3:18 PM

Chickens ----> Roost.

Posted by David in NY | March 28, 2008 3:27 PM

what does that tell any "Reality People" about Obama's chances in November? That's the experiment I'm talking about.

I don't know what Obama's chances are in November and neither do you. He has earned the right to lose just like every other white candidate before him, including Gore.

Posted by Face The Music | March 28, 2008 3:35 PM

RKU,

Neither Obama nor Clinton is pro-life or a particular favorite of the NRA, so I am not sure why you think all that puts Clinton at a disadvantage. Moreover, I think you are confusing PA's general electorate with the Democratic primary electorate (the Democratic primary electorate is not in fact all gun-toting pro-lifers).

Frankly, your logic completely escapes me. Clinton is relatively popular in PA, and it isn't a mystery how that happened (I listed the factors above). What I don't understand is how you are assuming that somehow McCain can step into her shoes. That is the part that makes no sense, but it is the crucial element needed to make this into a general election test.

Indeed, Rendell still whomped Casey in their primary contest, despite Casey doing well outside Philly, and Clinton is much better-positioned to compete outside Philly with Obama than Rendell was to compete with Casey (Casey Jr., I might note, with Casey, Sr. having been governor himself). But despite losing to Rendell by large margins in their primary contest, Casey was a great general election candidate against Santorum. All of which goes to show why it is kinda dumb to confuse primary contests with general election contests.

Posted by DTM | March 28, 2008 3:51 PM

Bob Casey Jr has built a very nice political career on his father's name and bless him for using that name to rid our state of the A-hole Santorum. However unless Obama changes his name to Casey, this isn't going to be a game changer. Lets just say it helps.

Posted by Undecided | March 28, 2008 3:57 PM

I want to play the Great White Snark's contiguous coast to coast states game.

Any website or URL where I can play it?

Posted by Brit | March 28, 2008 4:14 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonic_function

Posted by Montonically | March 28, 2008 4:14 PM

Any website or URL where I can play it?

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/index.html

Posted by Great White Snark | March 28, 2008 4:20 PM

I've thought Casey would endorse Obama for a while. Who was it who kept his father from speaking at the DNC convention in 1992? (Not without reason, but still . . .)

Casey reinforces Obama's "unity" message well, and, let's also not forget that he's one of the toughest economic populists going. As Obama has more of a chance to campaign in the state, he'll do better among Casey's core constituency. He's got the luxury of time for the first time in a while. Meanwhile, as Clinton comes under greater scrutiny / "sniper fire," her support, which does not seem very deep, is likely to wane. To say nothing of the huge defeats she's looking at in Philadelphia and the suburbs. Bucks County is not going to go for the pro-war candidate with no chance of winning, and Obama's already got an office up and running in Doylestown.

Posted by David B. | March 28, 2008 4:37 PM

I think it's a bit more accurate to call Casey a "beaujolais-quaffing liberal"

Posted by e | March 28, 2008 4:44 PM

I think it's a bit more accurate to call Casey a "beaujolais-quaffing liberal"

Posted by e | March 28, 2008 4:45 PM

I think it's a bit more accurate to call Casey a "beaujolais-quaffing liberal"

Only because beaujolais is quite middlebrow for an appellation controlee.

Posted by David B. | March 28, 2008 4:48 PM

People keep saying things like "Clinton is not a fool."

What are the grounds for this statement? Everything I"ve seen suggests that she is, in fact, a fool. Moreover, she is a fool much like the fool we currently have in the White House. The logic of her campaign at this point is pretty much -- "it is unthinkable that I could lose; therefore I will not admit to having lost, no matter how much that costs me or mine." That's the logic of our involvement in Iraq at this point too, yes? (With much worse results, of course.)

To me, Clinton has demonstrated that her much vaunted stubborness comes from much the same place as Bush's stubborness; that is, both are inflexible because they're intellectually unwilling to adjust to changing circumstances. It's not a trait that works well for an executive — it's why Clinton's health care debacle was such a, well, debacle. It's a big part of the reason I find the thought of her in office kind of terrifying.

Posted by NoahB | March 28, 2008 4:58 PM

It's odd, you know, everyone keeps discussing what might happen "if disaster befalls Obama." Doesn't disaster seem more likely to fall McCain--in the form of a heart attack or stroke, for instance?

Posted by 14All | March 28, 2008 5:44 PM

"In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs."

Yes, i see the superdelegates lining up behind this guy.

Posted by dan | March 28, 2008 5:47 PM

"In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs."

Yes, i see the superdelegates lining up behind this guy.

Posted by dan | March 28, 2008 5:50 PM

Good thing dan is here to disabuse us of the notion that the superdelegates were lining up behind Rev. Wright's candidacy.

Posted by Kraz | March 28, 2008 6:03 PM

Not that I quote the WSJ much, but she's right about the points in the money quotes below.

Getting Mrs. Clinton
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

That's what the Bosnia story was about. Her fictions about dodging bullets on the tarmac -- and we have to hope they were lies, because if they weren't, if she thought what she was saying was true, we are in worse trouble than we thought -- either confirmed what you already knew (she lies as a matter of strategy, or, as William Safire said in 1996, by nature) or revealed in an unforgettable way (videotape! Smiling girl in pigtails offering flowers!) what you feared (that she lies more than is humanly usual, even politically usual).

But either you get it now or you never will. That's the importance of the Bosnia tape.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 28, 2008 9:00 PM

"KC, the strategy could only work if it really became the conventional wisdom to question Obama's electability. So far that part of the strategy isn't working either. So it's not like Clinton has much of a chance. But whatever chance she has, it can't be based on wrapping up the nomination by having the superdelegates overrule the pledged delegates (which even if achievable would likely wreck Clinton's November prospects).

Posted by henry evans | March 28, 2008 2:41 PM"

This strategy also doesn't work when you are, of all people, Hillary Clinton, just about the most hated Democrat nationwide not named Gary Condit.

Posted by Reality Man | March 28, 2008 9:12 PM

Myth
"Hillary Clinton, just about the most hated Democrat nationwide not named Gary Condit"

Reality
Hillary received over 12,600,000 votes from all the Democratic races. If you were to add the votes of both FL and MI, her total count would be around 13,800,000.

Myth
Clinton inflexible-look at her failed universal health care plan

Reality
Hillary learns from her mistakes. She was the catalyst for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It has provided millions of children with health care.

Myth
"But whatever chance she has, it can't be based on wrapping up the nomination by having the superdelegates overrule the pledged delegates"

Reality
Obama is ahead by about 166 delegates. (Source: Real Clear Politics) However, he also needs the votes of super delegates to win. Footnote: "Obama is reportedly already trying to poach pledged delegates from Hillary." (Source: Hillary's Delegates from State Senate District-Houston, TX)

Myth
The logic of her campaign - "it is unthinkable that I could lose; therefore I will not admit to having lost, no matter how much that costs me or mine."

Reality
Hillary is a candidate with nine lives. The pundits counted her out in NH and on Super Tuesday and March 4.

Posted by EWard | March 29, 2008 4:07 AM