Sales Pitches

Call me crazy, but I found the latest Pew poll to be almost insanely good news for Barack Obama's prospects of beating John McCain. In particular, check out these results on the left. They don't, on the face of things, seem like very good news for Obama. But they come in the context of a poll that shows Obama beating McCain by a large 50-43 margin. Meanwhile, it seems to me that the best argument McCain has available to him is to try to persuade voters that Obama isn't tough enough on national security issues. Conversely, Obama's people will try to argue that McCain is too much of a warmonger. Given that a lot of what McCain is going to be looking to accomplish has been done already and he's still losing, this looks like trouble to me.

Similarly, Obama is winning even though he's doing unusually poorly among self-identified Democrats. In particular, older white working class Democrats seem drawn to McCain in pretty large numbers. But you've got to consider that at this point almost ever older white working class Democrat in America has been the target of a lot of messaging from Hillary Clinton arguing that Obama is too inexperienced and too dovish. They haven't, meanwhile, heard any messaging from anyone about how John McCain wants to privatize Social Security and cut Medicare benefits. Obama, in other words, is currently winning despite weakness with this demographic, and is also almost certain to look less weak among this demographic in November than he does today.

Meanwhile, in more good news for Democrats, in a Clinton-McCain matchup, Clinton wins too with a somewhat different pattern of support. Basically, even though 95 percent of Americans have never heard McCain criticized from the left, he's still behind against either candidate. I think it's a pretty bad position for him.

Comments

"Call me crazy, but I found the latest Pew poll to be almost insanely good news for Barack Obama's prospects of beating John McCain."

You're crazy. Obama's got the least trust on CiC of the three.

The insanely good news there is Clinton almost totally neutralizing the issue against McCain when it's McCain's signature issue.

-----

"Basically, even though 95 percent of Americans have never heard McCain criticized from the left, he's still behind against either candidate. I think it's a pretty bad position for him."

At some point between now and November, McCain will have his day. The polls will tighten. I think he's the underdog, but he's not to be left for dead.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 12:29 PM

The CiC issue is a big deal to Petey, which is why he's voting for Nader.

Posted by Jake | March 2, 2008 12:34 PM

"The CiC issue is a big deal to Petey"

Electorally, I do think it's a big deal. It dictates how Presidential general elections close.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 12:38 PM

Your points are valid, so far as they go. Democrats will come home for Obama. But you don't mention the symmetrical point that conservative Republicans will come home for McCain. It may be a wash, or it may work better for one of them.

Posted by Pithlord | March 2, 2008 12:40 PM

I came to the same conclusion that Matt did. This poll is incredibly good news for Obama.

He is leading and still has room to grow!

Of course he will lose some independents as the Rs start to unload on him, but that will of course push those working class Dems into his lane, especially as the economy worsens over the next year.

Posted by JP | March 2, 2008 12:42 PM

Jake: "The CiC issue is a big deal to Petey, which is why he's voting for Nader."

Hilarious, considering that he was supporting John Edwards for President for, what, 5 years? Jee, I wonder what Edwards would have got on *his* prepared to be Commander in Chief score.

Posted by Korha | March 2, 2008 12:48 PM

Electorally, I do think it's a big deal. It dictates how Presidential general elections close.

I'd believe you, were it not that you basically have zero credibility at this point.

Posted by Jake | March 2, 2008 12:52 PM

George W Bush had the full support of the GOP evangelicals going into the 2004 election and he still barely won against Kerry, who by then had been devestatingly swift-boated on his area of greatest strength.

John McCain will NOT have the evangelical support that Bush had, putting him at a distinct disadvantage.

I agree that blue collar dems will come home to BHO once the contrast is between McCain and Obama.

BHO still has a MAJOR problem in Florida, as McCain does in Ohio. Which is why I am praying Obama puts Bloomberg on the ticket for VP. Bloomy would: neutralize the anti-Semite charges; put Florida back in play; lend enormous cred on the economy and managerial expertise; can talk about the threats global terrorism having protected the world's number 1 terror target; et cetera.

Posted by Enough | March 2, 2008 12:53 PM

"I'd believe you, were it not that you basically have zero credibility at this point."

I have no credibility because I support a different candidate than you?

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 12:54 PM

Meanwhile, in more good news for Democrats, in a Clinton-McCain matchup, Clinton wins too with a somewhat different pattern of support.

How is this good (or bad) news for Democrats? Would it be good news for Republicans if a poll showed Zombie Ronald Reagan beating Obama? Clinton's not going to be the nominee, so her general election polling is entirely worthless.

Hilarious, considering that he was supporting John Edwards for President for, what, 5 years? Jee, I wonder what Edwards would have got on *his* prepared to be Commander in Chief score.

Indeed, the commander in chief issue is one reason I think that, counterintuitively, Kerry, for all his flaws, did better in 2004 than Edwards would have done. Kerry had trouble with Iraq and all that, but, in spite of swift boats, he always seemed like a plausible commander in chief. And he clearly knew his stuff on foreign policy, was willing to (if not always completely effectively) go on the offensive about it on the campaign trail, and demolished Bush in the debates.

Edwards would have done the classic Democratic "What, foreign policy? Look over there! It's domestic policy, that's what you really care about," campaign - the one that failed so dismally in the 2002 midterms. Kerry wasn't ideal on that front (his war vote made it hard for him to have a convincing foreign policy message), but for all his problems, Edwards would have been worse.

Obama seems like he actually is willing to go after McCain on foreign policy, and he has a credibility to do so that Edwards entirely lacks. His response to the 3 AM ad was perfectly played, for instance. He has no more experience on foreign affairs than Edwards, but he seems to be much much better on messaging it.

Posted by John | March 2, 2008 12:59 PM

I believe McCain still has a chance, if for example Al Qaeda kidnaps his wife.

Posted by Gary Sugar | March 2, 2008 1:01 PM

Yglesias, your Obama bias bores me, and I'm not even a Clinton supporter.

Posted by robert | March 2, 2008 1:02 PM

I await the Petey firestorm.

Also, is Petey actually supporting Nader, or is that just a fun lie to get at a deeper truth?

Enough - Besides the Jews, most of whose votes Obama is going to win anyway, who does Bloomberg put in play? He's not a charismatic politician, and I actually agree with Petey that economic managerial competence is not Obama's weakness (against John McCain? Really?), but rather national security. Obama needs a veteran, I think, as a running mate, or someone like Biden, with clear foreign policy cred. New Yorkers gravely overestimate the political appeal of their mayors.

Posted by John | March 2, 2008 1:05 PM

....almost ever older white working class Democrat in America... Obama is too inexperienced and too dovish.

Do you really think that 'older white working class Democrats' aren't actually thinking '...and way, way, way too dark'?

Posted by Davis X. Machina | March 2, 2008 1:05 PM

This could prove to be an election full of irony. Reading the polls, the GOP is likely to unload on the issue of 'toughness'. They have managed to paint most Democrats and nearly all liberals with that brush for over a quarter century. John Kerry had the 50 Cent badge of toughness (he got shot) from Vietnam and they still tabbed him as 'weak'. Clinton only avoided it by executing a man during the campaign.

That said, the flip side of that strategy has been for GOP to pump up the fears of white voters. There has been a flatly offensive tendency to inflate the racial element of the fear of crime and terrorism. Since '72, they have done a very good job making black men with odd names seem very tough indeed.

It strikes me that this frees Obama from tracking too far to the right to get his security bona fides in the general. Like Dubya is cowboy and army man costumes, Obama has optics that read 'tough guy' to swing voters in large measure due to the tone of GOP politics for the last 36 years.

Posted by Dean | March 2, 2008 1:06 PM

"Indeed, the commander in chief issue is one reason I think that, counterintuitively, Kerry, for all his flaws, did better in 2004 than Edwards would have done."

Edwards never had trouble with that poll question, either in '04 or '08.

In fact, his ability to keep his number on that poll question in good territory in '08 despite employing lefty foreign policy rhetoric was testament to his strength as a standard-bearer.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 1:13 PM

All it's going to take is for McCain to lose his cool once in a debate or on the stump, and the contrast with Obama will become clear.

Obama is cool under pressure. That's what people want from their CiC.

Posted by Jake | March 2, 2008 1:14 PM

Huckabee will be on the ticket, thus healing the rift with the troglodyte base.

Just think of the under-the-radar campaign:
"Vote McCain, because you're just an old-cancer-survivor's-heartbeat away from having one of your own in the Oval Office."

Posted by David | March 2, 2008 1:18 PM

John, it's not a result of NYers overestimating the political appeal of our mayors.

This issue of Obama being a not patriotic enough will continue to dog him. It will assume -- assume -- the form that 'he is not patriotic enough because he is a Muslim,' or at the very least, because he is "Other." And one of the only ways the GOP will be able to "legitimately" attack Obama on this issue of anti-Americanism is by saying: he's soft on Israel, will cuddle with the Muslim world, therefore he cant be trusted.

Look at the TN GOP this week. I'm actually from TN so I know a lot about its politics. The point of that press release was to perpetuate the idea that BHO is a Muslim. But they did so by saying: "Anti-Semites for Obama."

The GOP will try to make Farrakhan, Wright and to a lesser extent Sharpton and Jackson, all 4, Obama's running mates this election.

With Bloomberg, you get a repudiation of the entire anti-Semetic, anti-Israel thing. And at this point, the anti-semite / anti-israel smears will be dog whistle politics for BHO = Muslim.

You get huge cred on the economy.

You get Homeland Security cred.

Bottom line is this: we can put a 4 star General as VP, and we still lose the national security debate to the Republicans. We dont want to try to match them brass for brass; we want to tell America that 1) the GOP has not made us safer and 2) change the conversation to sure winning themes for Dems: the economy, health care, and (I would argue) taxes.

Posted by Enough | March 2, 2008 1:23 PM

"Also, is Petey actually supporting Nader"

If Obama is the nominee, at the moment I'm planning to support Nader.

But the same quality of being a loyal Democrat that leaves me hostile to the Obama candidacy also means there's a not insignificant chance I'll come home at some point if Obama signals his willingness to stop being such a tool about Democratic economic priorities.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 1:30 PM

I find this survey to be extremely troubling, not in the context of electoral projections, but in terms of how the American public views foreign policy.

Basically, it seems that a strong segment of the American public (including almost all Republicans, about half of independents and roughly a quarter of Democrats) want to continue the Bush approach of being "tough" on terrorism. In other words, there was nothing wrong with invading Iraq per se; we simply should have magically made things all better much more quickly.

The problem with the Bush administration's incompetence in Iraq is that it distracts heavily from the key point that the Iraq invasion was a collosal strategic failure. Even had the post-invasion been handled reasonably competently, the cost for the war still would have been very high and the likelihood of a failed state in Iraq still very high. Of course the Bush administration made things much worse because they had no idea what they were doing.

We're now six and a half years removed from the tragedy of September 11, and yet the American public overall still seems to embrace a reckless foreign policy based on the emotional hyperbole that is repeated ad nauseum by the war-loving right.

Posted by Michael | March 2, 2008 1:34 PM

I love that the only foreign policy and national security issue worth polling is "toughness". Is your candidate too tough on the terrorists, or not tough enough? Who would say a candidate "too tough" on the terrorists? Only 37% of Democrats would say that about McCain. Competence, sanity, diplomatic skill, nobody cares about these qualities.

Posted by fp | March 2, 2008 1:37 PM

Rats, Michael beat me to the punch while I was typing in my comment.

Posted by fp | March 2, 2008 1:38 PM

Obama has a secret weapon on National Security. Colin Powell is going to endorse him in the general.

If I were Obama, I'd hold off on that until just a couple days after the GOP convention, to blunt any "bump" McCain might get. Plus, you can bet the GOP convention will be national security all the time. It's their only shot.

Obama can close the gaps in another way as well: Picking a solid Running mate that reassures voters.

My dark horse candidate is actually former Congressman and Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson. He's from Florida, and he's a former POW.

Posted by Hesiod | March 2, 2008 1:45 PM

The largest problem with Matt's latest good news for Obama missive is that he equates HRC's campaign with the beat down Obama will receive in the general.
This is a common fantasy of Obama fans, that the HRC campaign has been so unethical and below the beltish that BHO has been magically immunized against the coming McCain assault.
On issue after issue Obama has not had to really defend his position because he and HRC occupy almost identical ground.
To suggest that Obama's negatives will not rise substantially when he has to defend his flip flops on Iraq, his socialized medicine, his tax increases, his expansion of the deficit, etc. etc., is simply wishful thinking.
And yes, before the villagers get out their pitchforks, HRC would face much the same difficulties but I believe to a lesser degree.
In brief, Obama believes that Hope, Change, and a speech he gave almost six years ago will suffice to answer McCain's criticisms. Lots of luck.
Figure at least 10% of Democrats will go for McCain over Obama. His problems with Jews, gays, blue collars, elderly, and Latinos are not going to be completely subsumed in his Kumbaya as he pivots to the center.
It's gonna get bumpy...

Posted by JTHB | March 2, 2008 1:52 PM

"Clinton's not going to be the nominee, so her general election polling is entirely worthless."

She's not likely to be the nominee, but she's still got a clear shot at it. She's undervalued at Intrade at the moment.

And if Obama can't snuff her on Tuesday, her odds will rise dramatically. She's incredibly vulnerable at the moment, but if she can survive being boxed into this corner, she's got a path to victory.

Don't count out the candidate who's clearly winning the Democratic vote so far.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 2:05 PM

Wow, petey's a total self-parody. I thought the "Petey is supporting Nader" was a joke. Unbelievable. Obama's health care plan considerably more extensive than anything any of the candidates offered in 2004. I'm not sure where, in other economic policy, Obama can be considered "toolish" at all. His policies otherwise are almost identical to Clinton's.

For someone so utterly confident of his own merit and wisdom, Petey's a fucking idiot.

As to Edwards' numbers on poll questions about his toughness, that's entirely irrelevant to how he would have done in 2004. Kerry at one point had good numbers on that too, before the GOP went after him. They've never gone after Edwards on that, at least not seriously. Obviously it's a counterfactual which can't be proven, but if he'd been the 2004 nominee, and they had gone after him half as hard as they went after Kerry, he'd have been destroyed, and probably a lot worse than Kerry was.

Posted by John | March 2, 2008 2:07 PM

"Obama's health care plan considerably more extensive than anything any of the candidates offered in 2004."

Obama's healthcare plan is designed to not pass any legislation.

And none of the '04 candidates ran Harry and Louise ads attacking universal healthcare. Not even Joementum was willing to be that disloyal.

You may think I'm a parody, but some of us think that handing the keys to the Democratic Party over to Austan Goolsbee, General Electric, and Marty Peretz is more of a risk than watching McCain flounder for four years.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 2:16 PM

One of the flaws in Matt's argument above is seeming to assume that the factors at the forefront of voters minds when making their choices are static.

There is no contradiction between some voters seeing McCain as stronger on national security and yet still choosing to vote for Obama (in this early poll). Clearly other factors are driving their vote in addition to national security credentials. One thing that happens in campaigns is that factors that were otherwise not a driving force in a vote choice can be emphasized by one campaign team through their media operations.

What this poll shows is an underlying perceived weakness for Obama relative to McCain on national security, which isn't likely to change. The poll also shows Clinton is at a slight disadvantage relative to McCain as well, but it's not as pronounced.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 2:16 PM

And none of the '04 candidates ran Harry and Louise ads attacking universal healthcare

No plan which enables the insurance racket deserves defending.

Posted by David | March 2, 2008 2:25 PM

You are seriously backing Clinton because of her lack of centerist economists, corporate sponsers, and cranky, old, jews vis-a-vis Obama?

Do you think maybe, just maybe, now....that you have lost your mind somewhere through your five year Edwards campaign?

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 2, 2008 2:26 PM

The 47% 'about right' number should be really troubling for McCain. Eight months before the election, he should be far higher than that on his signature issue. It's the equivalent of Social Security for a Dem, one of the preconceived issues that can only go down or be ignored as the election gets nearer.

Posted by Thomas | March 2, 2008 2:28 PM

What would it take to convince "pundits" that polls 8 months before the vote mean absolutely nothing?

Remind me...

How was Obama polling against Hillary Clinton 8 months ago?

Posted by Jacob Freeze | March 2, 2008 2:37 PM

Petey,

my friend, you are dreaming in color if you think that Hillary's plan is deisgned to go anywhere in Congress. Her mandates are DOA on the Hill, and everyone knows it.

Though he's never admitted it, I believe BHO's plan is in part designed as a compromise plan with Repubs. It's not socialized medicine, its cost cutting medicine; and it doesnt mandate that government force you to do something, it says, government can help but you have to take advantage of it.

She started to admit this lately - that her plan probably wouldnt even get out of committee - when she said, "if you dont start from the idea of covering everybody..." That was her basically saying: "I know this legislation has no chance when it gets to Congress, but I'm hoping we can compromise later." Obama's is already, in some sense, a compromise plan.

And lastly, some nerve you have to suggest that Obama has been disloyal to the party, when the wife of our "first black president" made a concerted effort to label BHO as "the black candidate" after losing Iowa. this was the political equivalent of throwing AAs under the bus because the Clintons figured: we cant beat a black guy who can attrack white voters; we've got to make him the "other," because there are more of "us" than there are "them."

Talk to us about party disloyalty if/when HRC loses either TX or Ohio, having already said she needs both to continue, and drags on to wage a bloody civil war with Obama, each day hitting him (often underhandidly) and lending credibility to the charges which McCain can pick up and run with in a few months time.

Talk to us about party disloyalty if/when HRC tries to repair what may be irreparable harm done to the democratic party in Florida. She has convinced Dems in Florida that Obama is the reason they arent going to be seated in Denver. She made a pledge; went back on it when it no longer suited her political needs; pointed to BHO and said, "he's to blame," and may have cost us Florida in the general because of it.

And it's BHO whose been disloyal to the party, sure....

Posted by Enough | March 2, 2008 2:39 PM

Gays and blue collars would switch over to John McPermanentTaxCuts?

Read some of Andrew Sullivan's recent stuff. Obama will get the gay vote.

And, I know he's very, very much in Hillary's camp, but does anyone else think Wes Clark would make a good VP for Obama? Completely crushes McCain on national security credentials and is another "outsider."

Posted by Tony | March 2, 2008 2:39 PM

Bloomberg would bring nothing to the ticket. Obama's main problem is that he appeals to elites more than the working class base, Bloomberg would just make that worse.

I'd like to see Wes Clark in the VP slot. A nice safe white non-ethnic male, with impeccable military and foreign policy experience.

Posted by mtraven | March 2, 2008 2:40 PM

Enough, I'm not sure how much damage was done in Florida. A recent poll suggested that only 24% of Florida Dems wanted the delegates seated.

Posted by Tony | March 2, 2008 2:41 PM

"my friend, you are dreaming in color if you think that Hillary's plan is deisgned to go anywhere in Congress."

I most definitely dream in color.

Clinton smartly adopted the Edwards plan in toto, which was designed precisely to pass Congress and get us to universal healthcare in the short-term.

She doesn't have Edwards' persuasive skills nor his commitment to the issue, which is partly why I had to hold my nose to vote for her, but she's still on rails to get the thing singed into law in the '09 - '10 Congress, which is good enough for my support.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 2:56 PM

Some of the arguments made here seem totally nuts...

Obama's big problem will be with blue-collar, working-class, economically-populist but socially-conservative non-black Democrats. Therefore, he should put Bloomberg on the ticket. Bloomberg is an elitist, economically-conservative but socially-liberal billionaire non-Democrat from NYC (and a big supporter of the crazy Iraq War!). Huh???

Well, the argument is that Obama needs to shore up the Jewish vote. But Jews are only about 3% of the November electorate, and I honestly can't imagine Barack *Hussein* Obama getting less than about 70% of the Jewish vote under the worst possible scenario against McCain. Maybe if he puts Bloomberg on the ticket and spends every Saturday at a synagogue, he'll raise that to 85%, giving him an extra 0.5% of the total net vote. That's just plain nuts as a winning strategy.

Posted by RKU | March 2, 2008 2:56 PM

Tony, please disabuse yourself of the notion that Andrew Sullivan is particularly perspicacious when it comes to gay politics.
He is not.
His bete noire is the Human Rights Campaign because they do not share his belief that gay marriage is the sine qua non of gay civil rights.
He has lost that argument. Just check out the gay marriage stats from Massachusetts. Most gays and lesbians are far more concerned with discrimination at work, in housing, etc. (the HRC issues) than with replicating their parents' failed social constructs. And of course on gay marriage Andrew's position is that it is a states' rights issue. Sure, just like Jim Crow laws.
Will lots of gays vote Obama in the GE? You bet! But a very large number will not. Obama's SC campaign with openly gay hating "ministers" has not been forgotten or forgiven.
Blue collar workers are smart enough to know that Obama's soak the rich talk will end up hitting them in the wallet. They also know that Obama is pandering with lots of empty promises that the deficits will insure he fails to keep.
And lastly, on Iraq though you don't mention it, Obama's latest flip flop is indistinguishable from McCain's position.

Posted by JTHB | March 2, 2008 3:01 PM

Tony,

that poll is good news, but my understanding is that Floridians have basically decided: Hillary cares about us, Obama doesn't. The talk radio, newspapers, et cetera all repeat that theme.

Had HRC not pulled such an audacious stunt like this, it wouldnt have created these divisions.

mtraven,

your point about appealing to working class folk is well taken, but i believe once Obama continues to make his pitch he'll attract more and more working class people.

Maine, Wisconsin, Missouri, and others, you're telling me these aren't working class states????

Mark Penn, at one point, tried to convince us HRC would win Wisconsin exactly because of its working class demo. 17 points later, that looked stupid.

just look at the polls in working class Ohio. 20 point HRC lead 2 months ago; 5 point lead today.

BHO wants to cut middle class taxes, McCain does not--who wins that argument in the general?

Lastly, Bloomberg brings a lot to the ticket. BHO will get hit from the right: liberal, inexperienced, liberal, liberal, liberal. You put a fiscal conservative on the ticket with him, someone who happens to be Jewish as well, and you immediately are able to confound the expectations that you want to create a nanny, welfare state.

Posted by Enough | March 2, 2008 3:06 PM

"Some of the arguments made here seem totally nuts... Obama's big problem will be with blue-collar, working-class, economically-populist but socially-conservative non-black Democrats. Therefore, he should put Bloomberg on the ticket. Bloomberg is an elitist, economically-conservative but socially-liberal billionaire non-Democrat from NYC (and a big supporter of the crazy Iraq War!). Huh???"

What RKU said.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 3:09 PM

Clinton smartly adopted the Edwards plan in toto, which was designed precisely to pass Congress and get us to universal healthcare in the short-term.

Just keep asserting, Petey, keep asserting.

Posted by John | March 2, 2008 3:09 PM

"Just keep asserting, Petey, keep asserting."

If Clinton wins 3 out 4 on Tuesday, she's the likely nominee despite the current appearance of the delegate math.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 3:12 PM

JTHB, I don't pretend to know much about the gay community's current stances re: the candidates and whether or not Sullivan speaks for a majority. I was mostly referring to the things he had linked to. I thought Obama preached a message of tolerance far greater than anything we've seen in politics. But I'm not gay, so I might be wrong.

Can't somebody in Florida spread the word that Obama didn't want the delegates seated because it would be against the rules, not because he has something against the state? I mean, he wants to cut taxes for old people!

Posted by Tony | March 2, 2008 3:14 PM

"Just keep asserting, Petey, keep asserting."

And despite your assertion that I'm asserting, this statement...

Clinton smartly adopted the Edwards plan in toto, which was designed precisely to pass Congress and get us to universal healthcare in the short-term.

...seems amazingly uncontroversial to me.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 3:14 PM

If Clinton wins 3 out 4 on Tuesday, she's the likely nominee despite the current appearance of the delegate math.

Fun with antecedents!

Posted by southpaw | March 2, 2008 3:15 PM

If Clinton wins 3 out 4 on Tuesday, she's the likely nominee despite the current appearance of the delegate math.

How, exactly, do you see this happening? Super delegates?

Posted by Dave | March 2, 2008 3:16 PM

I think the concern about white working class voters not open to voting for Obama is a valid one. HRC would probably do well with this group because many still have fond memories of her husband who garnered a lot votes from this group. Since Jimmy Carter, Clinton is the only Democrat to well with this group,this is not true with Gore and Kerry.

Posted by Micheline | March 2, 2008 3:20 PM

Micheline, that might be true for the primaries, but would they really switch to McCain, or not vote at all? Who's more like Bill, Barack or Father Time?

Posted by Tony | March 2, 2008 3:25 PM

What about the Edwards plan makes it more likely to pass Congress than the Obama plan? What on earth is the basis for thinking that any plan like that is likely to pass congress in toto in any straightforward way? The writers I've read who have some actual idea how Congress works don't seem to agree with you.

If Clinton wins 3 out 4 on Tuesday, she's the likely nominee despite the current appearance of the delegate math.

If she wins bare majorities in Ohio and Texas (and Rhode Island), she still can barely be conceived to be likely to win the nomination. The delegate math is still the same, and after Wyoming and Mississippi, she's in exactly the same place she is now. Then there's 42 days to Pennsylvania. Maybe if Clinton can turn the tide there and win a solid victory in Pennsylvania, she'll be able to win most of the May and June primaries (she'll have to win her likely states, plus Indiana, plus at least one of Oregon and North Carolina, I think), and then she'd have a colorable argument for why superdelegates should back her. But even then, Obama will have the advantage in delegates, and, as I believe I've said before, a scenario like that only means a convention floor fight and a disastrous defeat for the Democrats in November, no matter how it turns out.

I'm glad, though, that Petey's about to lose all his intrade winnings through going long on Clinton to win the nomination.

Posted by John | March 2, 2008 3:31 PM

Obama's in big trouble among meglomaniacs with crushes on John Edwards. If he can't make inroads in that crucial demographic, I'd say it's all over.

Posted by Pithlord | March 2, 2008 3:31 PM

Wow, can this thread reach a critical mass of crazy? What about an election where Obama alienates everybody except his wife? It is that more or less possible than Hillary Clinton getting 85% of Tuesday's vote? Should Obama's running mate be Bloomberg? Or Tom Tancredo, because in the end, no Democrat will vote for Obama anyway? How about the McCain phenomenon amongst upper-middle class urban voters? It's coming, it's coming.

Posted by Thomas | March 2, 2008 3:32 PM

RKU,

Bloomberg and the Iraq war is the only argument I think that holds a ton of water here. But it can be semi-easily diffused by adopting the same flip flop that HRC has adopted over the war. And it will matter less because he would be VP.

He is an elitist, but so are a huge percentage of the GOP's base who delight in the Republican tax cuts.

I would LOVE to hear Hannity and the GOP blowhards bash Bloomberg for being an elitist, as if making money in our capitalist society is a bad thing. The GOP will scream: socialized medicine; socialist tax policy...the GOP tax structure is designed to favor the rich, even Bush says so. Here would be an uber-rich American saying: he's right, our tax system is fucked up.

And, Bloomberg has kept the world's number 1 terror target safe after 9/11.

Its not about increasing his votes among Jews, its about realizing where he is vulnerable: social liberal, tax and spender, zero executive experience, MUSLIM, Anti-Semite, inexperienced....and trying to find some way to counter those charges.

Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, working class states. BHO is not going win working class republicans because he's a "liberal," and black.

Someone like Bloomberg, who can blunt a lot of the charges of liberal economic policy (nanny, welfare state, tax and spender) that will be leveled against Obama, will only be a good thing.

And then I repeat my earlier thing about the GOP trying to smear BHO as a Muslim by saying he's got anti-Semites supporting him (Farrakhan), or that he's soft on Israel (because he would meet with Iran).

That will leave Obama to defend himself against charges of social liberalism, and I have NEVER seen a Democrat defend liberalism in the way Obama can do it. He's going to lay McCain to waste in that debate, McCain of the straight talk express now running full speed to the right in defiance of his record in Washington.

Like I said, if we try to go brass for brass with John McCain, the war hero, we will lose. This election cannot be about national security. It has to be about 1) the GOP has NOT made us safer under Bush/McCain policy, 2) the GOP has put our once mighty economy in severe peril.

Posted by Enough | March 2, 2008 3:37 PM

Any details on who are the 19% of Democrats who think McCain is "not tough enough" on national security? I can see some arch-conservative Republicans thinking that way, but whoare the Democrats with that mindset?

Posted by wj | March 2, 2008 3:37 PM

"I'm glad, though, that Petey's about to lose all his intrade winnings through going long on Clinton to win the nomination."

Given that I think her True Value to win the nomination right now is around 25, going long at 12 was the smart bet.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 3:53 PM

"The delegate math is still the same"

Momentum exists. If Clinton can start winning, Clinton can easily keep winning. And that'd change how this all plays out.

All delegates are fungible to the zeitgeist, both unpledged delegates and pledged delegates.

Delegates to the Democratic convention will take note that Clinton has a comfortable margin in votes from Democratic voters during this race. That's who they represent.

In short, be able to win at the end of the nomination race, or go home.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 4:00 PM

wj:I think that McCain is not tough enough on national security. I think his focus on bombing and warmongering is de facto not tough enough. He's too wimpy to deal with the long slog of fighting actual terrorism. Same with Bush.

Petey:One can actually make a pretty defensible argument against mandates. If one think,s that the insurance industry might be able to "lock in" reforms then use the mandates against consumers, similar to what they've done in the auto insurance market, then mandates may be a bad thing.

Posted by Karmakin | March 2, 2008 4:08 PM

"I think it's a pretty bad position for him."

I don't think he's in that bad of a position. Obama is simply a stronger horse (a better politician), so he's a safer bet to win than HRC. But the parties have really built in their discounts. In a really bad year for Republicans, the GOP has nominated the guy who has the easiest time with independents. The Dems have nominated a very gifted figure with good ideas, but one who happens to have an exotic background, solidly liberal views, and who is trying to break the race barrier too. McCain is the cautious nomination, Obama's is the hopeful, quite audacious one. I think their respective strengths and weaknesses, electorally, will basically make it a tie game going into the summer. In short liberals are too optimistic right now that Obama will have an easy time getting independents. MY talks as if liberals have this devastating news to break to the country that McCain is pro-war, pro-social security privatization, etc. These shoes have already dropped and he's still a pretty popular politician.

"Any details on who are the 19% of Democrats who think McCain is "not tough enough" on national security?"

"Too tough/ not tough enough" is a question being asked in a political climate where each party is trying to prove that it is more serious, more effective, more committed to fighting terrorism. No politician in the country is going to couch their criticism of another politician in these terms (especially "too tough"). So for Democrats who don't want to give McCain any high ground ont he issue, "not tough enough" is probably their way of saying his policies are crazy, ineffective, and likely to backfire.

Posted by Colatina | March 2, 2008 4:12 PM

"Petey:One can actually make a pretty defensible argument against mandates."

One could also have made a pretty defensible argument against Social Security in 1934.

In fact, there's an entire organized group dedicated to making such arguments. It's called the Republican Party.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 4:16 PM

While I agree with Petey that Austan Goolsbee is not the chief adviser of a good Democrat on economic issues, I think that he's making way too much of Clinton's health care plan.

She only adopted Edwards' wonk plan, not his strategy for getting it passed. His strategy for getting it passed was to get elected while running against corporate interests, big pharma and big insurance, and thus coming into office without owing big debts to the interests that oppose his economic goals. Hillary is running as the only (Dem) candidate taking the money of big pharma and big insurance, and I am far, far less confident that she would be able to get it passed without making huge concessions to precisely those moneyed interests that got her elected.

The Edwards critique of political power was structural - it's not that Democrats lacked good plans, it's that corporate power, and the debts owed by even Democrats to corporate interests, prevented good plans from getting passed. Hillary has the good plan, but she's still embedded in precisely the structures that will prevent its passage as it ought to be.

We haven't had a president elected running as a Democrat on economics since LBJ. We won't get one this year, either. That sucks, because it could have happened with Edwards. Both Clinton and Obama draw their ideologies from the neoliberal / neoconservative domestic policy consensus of the 70s and 80s.

Posted by DivGuy | March 2, 2008 4:19 PM

Enough:

Look, Bloomberg's *only* national base is among socially-liberal multi-millionaires and maybe a few David Broder types. Putting Bloomberg on Obama's ticket would nail down all the members of this demographic who'd otherwise go for elderly, cranky McCain, all 126 of them.

Bloomberg totally supports the crazy Iraq War, so this would help to balance the ticket against Obama's own foolish opposition to the War, while also cleverly undercutting McCain's own strongest issue, namely his promise to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

And all those Ohio factory workers worried about losing their jobs and health benefits would be another prime target. They've been a little worried that Obama was some sort of "black leftist", but once they hear his Jewish New York City billionaire VP promoting more free trade agreements and denouncing unions and government entitlement programs, they'll be totally reassured and say "Barack's my main man!"

In fact, Bloomberg is such an absolutely ideal choice for Obama, I think Obama should announce his VP selection NOW, thereby nailing down those waivering Democratic working-class primary voters and crushing Hillary in a landslide.

Posted by RKU | March 2, 2008 4:27 PM

You may think I'm a parody, but some of us think that handing the keys to the Democratic Party over to Austan Goolsbee, General Electric, and Marty Peretz is more of a risk than watching McCain flounder for four years.

That's the kind of shrewd political calculus that paid off so well after the 2000 election.

Posted by Marc | March 2, 2008 4:29 PM

I think if I look at Obama vs. HRC, amongst Dems he's only down 6 and amongst Independents he's down 5 compared to HRC. I think that the national security/CiC question is about who's the strongest. If it were then GHW Bush would have trounced Clinton and DOle would have knocked him off his reelection. Rather, it is a threshold question. THe Obama vs. Clinton numbers compared to two months ago have moved significantly in his direction. It's because for 20 debates he has hung in there with her and held his own. He had to meet a threshold amongst the Democratic electorate against HRC and he has.

Against John McCain, barring a serious gaffe, he will talk intelligently about national security and foregin affairs on the same stage and appear "presidential." There's about 40% of the electorate that will never vote for him and will also cite his inexperience. But that is not the reason they'll vote against him.

If you look at the BHO and HRC numbers amongst Republicans they are only 2% (14 vs. 16%) off. I think that the percentage of Democratic base voters in November who would've voted for HRC but are instead voting for McCain on national security experience alone is small. Some of them can't pull the lever for a black man.

Posted by Ishaan | March 2, 2008 4:31 PM

I agree with pretty much everything DivGuy says, but still think the chances of Clinton being able to get the plan signed into law in the '09 - '10 Congress are high enough to justify holding my nose and supporting her in the nomination battle.

Her chances of success are lower than Edwards' chances would've been, but they're still significant. And getting the bill signed, any which way, will bring about the mechanics to usher in a more progressive era to Washington going forward.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 4:33 PM

There are lots of criticisms of mandates one can make from the left, surely? Here, for instance, is Nathan Newman, saying the whole debate between Clinton and Obama's plans is moot, because mandates are essentially irrelevant. I'm not sure I understand why mandates became the sine qua non of proper Democratic health care policy. Because Petey, Ezra Klein, and Paul Krugman say so?

Posted by John | March 2, 2008 4:35 PM

What's great about the internets is that you exposed to demented, self-aggrandizing fools you hardly ever find in real life. In spite littering progressive blogs with one laughably wrong prediction after the other, it's funny to find Petey continuing to confidently spout nonsense as if they are divinely ordained.

While idiots like Petey can't understand the basic logic at work here, the reality is very clear if you game it out: Clinton is in an impossible spot. She has no mathematical way to take the pledged delegates lead. Her only path to the nomination involves swinging superdelegates in her favor and install either or both of the Florida and Michigan delegates in a drawn out convention fight. If she does so, she will lose the general election. Badly. She will take a huge beating in the media, and a non-trivial chunk of Obama supporters -- especially independents and young voters -- will stay home or swing to McCain. Black voters will feel like they got jobbed and turn out at lower than expected numbers. If she wins, she loses. Or rather, if she wins, the Democrats lose.

Given the above scenario, it behooves anyone who cares about the Democratic Party over the interests of the Clintons to vote for Obama on March 4th. This applies even to Clinton supporters. Avoiding this nightmare scenario is why the Party establishment is looking to step in this week, even if Clinton wins Ohio and Texas by small popular margins.

Posted by Ryan W. | March 2, 2008 4:40 PM

"That's the kind of shrewd political calculus that paid off so well after the 2000 election."

I enthusiastically voted Gore over Nader in 2000.

Bush scared me much more than McCain scares me, and Gore was running with the Democratic Party, not against the Democratic Party the way Obama is on entitlements.

2000 was an easy choice. I was living in a college town in a swing state, and I think I was able to personally convert enough Nader voters back to the Party to provide a healthy chunk of the narrow statewide margin for Gore.

There was no advantage to the Party in keeping Gore out of the WH in 2000. But Obama in 2008 looks like a different situation to me at the moment.

Once you sell the Party to General Electric and Marty Peretz, it's not going to be easy to buy it back.

Posted by Petey | March 2, 2008 4:43 PM

Bush scared me much more than McCain scares me, and Gore was running with the Democratic Party, not against the Democratic Party the way Obama is on entitlements.

This I don't follow.

McCain has a long history of believing in an utterly whacked-out notion of the imperial destiny of America. He sees American forces remaining in Iraq as an imperial force. He scares the holy bejeezus out of me - especially because, if a second general election were held in which the anti-war candidate lost, we would see the reorganization of American politics toward a neo-imperial, ultra-interventionist consensus.

Posted by DivGuy | March 2, 2008 4:50 PM

Once you sell the Party to General Electric and Marty Peretz, it's not going to be easy to buy it back.

Basically, I think that if McCain wins, we'll have sold the country to Marty Peretz.

Posted by DivGuy | March 2, 2008 4:53 PM

Obama isn't running against the Democratic Party. This is absurd. Gore was very harsh on Bradley's health care plan and attacked it from the right.

Posted by John | March 2, 2008 5:00 PM

RKU:

the only people who are 100 percent morally pure on Iraq are those who voted against it in 2002.
That includes exactly zero of the Democratic nominees, save for Kucinich and Gravel. So if you're trying to tell me that someone like Bloomberg, who was in favor of taking out Saddam but has since realized the occupation is hurting, not helping, major cities like New York, if you think that would be a major weight around BHO's neck, fine. that's your opinion. But for any other Senator named as a possible choice, Biden, Dodd, (even HRC), the same "you voted for this war" charge could be leveled. Doubly so for someone like Biden, who is the fabled foriegn policy expert.

You're points are: Bloomberg was in favor of the invasion (see above); he's a free trader; he has no national base of support.

My points are: BHO is a free trader also, he just thinks we can do better in terms of our environmental and labor standards; and the advantage of a Bloomberg is not him bringing in a national base (BHO is building that base), its what Bloomberg represents: a deficit hawk; fiscal conservative; pro-business executive who knows the economy. He would make it harder for the GOP to convincingly argue that he is a liberal liberal liberal liberal liberal.

It would also take steps to put money where Barack's mouth is, by tapping someone who has crossover appeal and can speak with authority on "republican" issues like the economy and taxes.

and he helps, as i've said above -- which you repeatedly fail to mention -- he helps tremendously with Obama's muslim problem. Because it makes it harder for the GOP to say BHO (Farakkhan/Rev. Wright) = Anti-Semite.

But hey, agree to disagree.

in the end, his advisors will probably just convince him to nominate a Zinni or a Webb-type (though not Webb himself becasue the Dems need his seat), and we'll try to go brass for brass with a war hero, try to convince the country, which considers "toughness" the mark of foriegn policy cred, that BHO (a liberal preppy lawyer from Hawaii) is tougher than McCain, who was tortured as a POW...and we'll lose that argument. Spectacularly.

But hey. we'll go down in that fight swinging.

we need to change the story and not try to fight Republicans on their terms, and trying to match up with McCain is not the way to go. We need to tell people why McCain is wrong. How Bush/McCain has not made us safer and how Bush/McCain has crippled our economy and put that burden on our children and grandchildren. If this debate devolves into who can "out-military" the GOP, that's a loser for Dems.

Posted by Enough | March 2, 2008 5:31 PM

It is a New York-centric fantasy to imagine that Bloomberg has actual crossover appeal. He's an uncharismatic Jewish man from New York with a funny voice.

Posted by John | March 2, 2008 5:58 PM

I clicked on the Pew link and found to my surprise that you definitely spun this poll away from Pew's title. I don't see anything to support wording like "insanely good" chances there.

What sprung to my mind immediately after looking at it is that Obama's chances are good (but not insanely) IF McCain has much less money than Obama does. Which right now, looks like it might be the case, and which is why he's probably been raising the issue about funding--he doesn't have a wild committed base to keep giving and giving.

What the Pew poll clearly shows to me is what I saw what the best pollsters like Charlie Cook kept saying weeks ago: Obama has a high ceiling and low floor and Clinton has a low ceiling and high floor. It's right here in Pew's summary:

However, the survey results point to several potential hazards for Obama. A solid majority of voters (56%) says Obama has not provided enough information about his plans and policies; in contrast, most voters say Clinton and McCain have disclosed enough information about their plans.

Everyone in the country knows all kinds of bad stuff about Hillary, up down and backwards. Everyone already thinks they have a bead on her and what she's about, has decided whether they like her or hate her, and few are going to change their minds.

Everyone in the country, however, has not read Obama's two books and dooesn't know the details of his life and career and hasn't made up their minds about him. All many of them know right now is the image his campaign has presented, which, whether intentional or not, comes across as general inspirational and vague centrist, new kind of politics, stop the red and the blue divide, etc.

If McCain has money behind him to refine Obama's image in another direction and Obama's team can't counteract that, the danger is great over 7 months. He is ripe for losing a lot of steam from a Willie Horton type technique with Dukakis. (There appears to be a lot of stuff in his own books that can be spun to create doubts!)

If Hillary was the candidate, that's harder to do to her because everyone has already made their mind up about her, like her or hate her, they think they know what she's about and no one is going to convince them otherwise.

Obama has to refine his own image before the GOP does it for him. Many voters are for change now but will decide against change if the image of change presented becomes one they don't like.

Posted by artappraiser | March 2, 2008 6:10 PM

Just after I posted my above comment, there was nothing on MSNBC or CNN, so I flipped on Fox,

and Karl Rove came on,

trying out anti-Obama points:

1) His first words, they even showed a clip of an Obama speech: that Obama is talking neo-isolationism. Rove then tied neo-isolationism to the economy right away. Said 9/11 was devastating to the economy. Brought up being anti-Nafta and anti-trade. Then said, in his more analyst tone, that the state of the economy a month before the election is what really matters, pointed out the 2000 example when it was starting to turn, said that helped Bush win.

2) He thinks the "Obama is a Muslim" technique is stupid, will backfire big time as people learn the truth. Rather, he would hit on McCain being steadfast friend to Israel and Obama as wishy-washy.

3) The age difference can go both ways. Obama really is going to continue to be hammered on the maturity and experience thing because it will work with a lot of people in a race with McCain.

Posted by artappraiser | March 2, 2008 6:37 PM

Michael: "Basically, it seems that a strong segment of the American public (including almost all Republicans, about half of independents and roughly a quarter of Democrats) want to continue the Bush approach of being "tough" on terrorism. In other words, there was nothing wrong with invading Iraq per se; we simply should have magically made things all better much more quickly."

The problem is that the American public is totally ignorant about both the causes of terrorism and how to properly deal with it. They've bought into the "War on Terror" rhetoric from the GOP which is complete bullshit.

And this is bad news for Obama because there is no easy way to communicate the proper way to deal with terrorism, which is US foreign policy change. That doesn't lend itself to easy sound bites, or Clinton's stupid ad about "protecting your children".

And it's not even clear to me that Obama even understands the proper way to deal with terrorism. He's completely wrong on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there's no evidence he understands the motivations of Hizballah or Hamas.

So he's going into these debates with McCain at a huge disadvantage. And if he tries the Kerry approach of trying to seem tougher than McCain on terrorism, he will lose badly because he doesn't have the "cred" - however spurious the McCain cred actually is (and it is spurious, since McCain has never had anything to do with terrorism and his military career was one of incompetence.)

In this regard, it might be valuable for Obama to pick a general as a running mate who DOES have some sort of clue - if he can find one, which is questionable. Somebody like Zinni or even Wesley Clark might help, but it's not clear they understand anything, either.

Most of the people who understand the issues of terrorism simply aren't available as Vice Presidential candidates. If Obama had some competent advisers, it would be better.

But the argument is still going to be hard to make publicly, and I don't see any way he can deal with that.

And Clinton isn't even in the game in this respect. She has zero cred on national security, even if she picked Wesley Clark as VP, and despite her vote on Iraq which is a total negative, and despite her hawkishness in general.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 2, 2008 7:02 PM

I think if Hillary can win the primaries in Ohio and Texas (not the caucus in Texas) then her only path to the nomination is to continue to raise serious questions, in even stronger terms, about his readiness to be the Democratic nominee and be the president. Her critique should focus on whether he is tough enough to take on the Republicans, and tough enough to be commander-in-chief. I don't think she can be frightened about making this a race between a moderate, New Democrat and an old style Democrat in centrist cloth. She can point to her stronger record on bipartisanship than Obama. She can point to her work in the Clinton administration and his support from somebody like Znigniew Brzinski, who was Jimmy Carter's foreign policy architect. She can point to Obama's positions on Iran and negotiating with dictators. The truth is she is more hawkish than he is and she has to present that an an advantage when going up against a man like John McCain who has strong national security credentials.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 7:24 PM

artappraiser:

As I have been saying: the "Obama is wishy-washy on Israel" will become code for "Obama is a Muslim." Because after every hit Obama will take on Israel, it will be followed up by the fact that he has the "support" of Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.

Rove wants the Muslim smear to continue, he just wants to reframe how it is talked about because he doesnt want the backlash.

So even if Obama doesnt tap Bloomberg for VP, he better start putting Jewish surrogates out there right now who will shoot down this "soft on Israel" argument.

Posted by Enough | March 2, 2008 8:21 PM

Enough:

So what is your point? You think Obama's support for Israel should be off-limits? You think talking about Rev. Wright and Farrakhan should be off-limits?

You seem to imply that any potentially successful attack Obama is somehow racist.

That seems to be the Obama campaign strategy so far. Imply any damaging attack is really a racist smear or an example of old time politics.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 9:02 PM

Tim K:

I appreciate the response but you are exactly wrong. that is not what i'm saying at all. And, more to the point: the Obama campaign has NOT implied that any damaging attack is racist. Obama has gone to great lenghts to diminish talk of race in this campaign. That was your candidate, who brought it up, and tried to label Obama The Black Candidate.

my point is not to point fingers and say, "you're racist." my point is to be practical.

1) it behooves the GOP if its whispered that Obama is Muslim. That makes him "un-American," "un-patriotic," et cetera.

2) but they can't call him a Muslim outright, because that is both a lie and leaves them vulnerable to attacks of (racial) fear mongering. Even the GOP does not want to be the party of bigots, that would give suburban, moderate conservatives (mostly women) pause.

3) so in the absence of being able to say: Obama is a Muslim, they will say, "Obama is soft on Israel." And they will cite his willingness to talk with Iran and Farrakhan and Wright, the latter two in an attempt to do "guilt (Muslim) by association." its Dog Whistle politics.

Issues like Israel should not be out of bounds for Obama, at all. Nor do his supporters believe any attack on him is a racist attack.

Truth be told, you will start to hear conservatives bemoan an inability to attack Obama for fear of being called racist (your beloved Sen. Clinton's surrogates are already saying the same)...and in the face of this, Obama will continue to say that: "if i dont get the nomination or the presidency, it won't be because i'm black."

My point about Bloomberg (aside from the other advantages I think he brings to the ticket) is this: saying Obama is soft on Israel will become code for saying he is a Muslim, and Obama's people had better be prepared to defend against these charges. And, like it or not, one of the ways you defend against such charges is by showcasing the support you have in the Jewish community.

Posted by Enough | March 2, 2008 10:18 PM

Enough:

That's because it's true. No white or female candidate with his level of experience would have gotten this far. The historic nature of his candidacy and white guilt has meant he isn't being judged simply on the basis of individual merit.

The Obama campaign forcefully pushed the falsehood in the press in the days after New Hampshire that Bill Clinton made a racial remark about a black candidate being a "fairy tale"... a total falsehood. They also pushed the falsehood that Hillary Clinton was denigrating Martin Luther King and somehow being racially insensitive when she pointed out an historic and relevant fact about how change happens in the real world. Obama called it "an ill-advised" remark. When in fact the only reason it even came up was because Obama was quoting MLK in his speeches without any real reason.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 10:27 PM

I think we can be pretty clear that Tim K. is no more than an agent provocateur, and that his inevitable response to being called out as such will be to whine about Obama supporters trying to close down the conversation, blah yawn blah.

He's a fucking troll. A classic troll.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 2, 2008 10:31 PM

pseudonymous in nc:

Were I instead railing on about White Water and tax returns you'd be applauding. You have no credibility.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 10:36 PM

Personality aside, Tim K is wrong. We've had plenty of inexperienced white male presidents, and they've varied in quality from Abraham Lincoln to George W. Bush.

Posted by southpaw | March 2, 2008 10:42 PM

southpaw:

Say what you want about George Bush, he had more experience than Barack Obama.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 10:48 PM

George W. Bush had six years as Governor of Texas as his sole elected experience. By all accounts, the Governor of Texas is apparently among the least powerful governors in the country - the Lieutenant Governor has most of the effective authority.

Obama had eight years in the Illinois legislature, and will have had four years in the Senate. I'm not sure how that qualifies as less experience.

And Jimmy Carter had less experience than Obama by any normal measure - he had a single term (four years) as governor of Georgia to his name, plus four years in the state legislature. I'd think four years in the state legislature + 4 years in the Senate equals out to more experience than four years as governor.

Posted by John | March 2, 2008 10:58 PM

Obama has 6 years in the Illinois state senate where he accomplished virtually nothing. He had two subsequent years in the Illinois state senate where he was able to co-sponsor a myriad of bills he had barely worked on because of the support of the leader of Illinois state senate.

He has been in the Senate for 3 years (can you count?) and only 1.5-2 years before he started running for president. In the last year he hasn't even had a single hearing on Afghanistan even though he chairs the responsible sub-committee and calls it the central front in the war on terror.

Jimmy Carter was a nice man and wanted to do well, but was a failed, one-term president (and clearly your other example, Bush, has a complete disaster).

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 11:06 PM

Ok, Tim K.

I always try to keep an open mind about these types of things. And its true, Sen. Clinton's suppport is much less than Obama on the Atlantic's blogroll; unless Sen. Clinton's supporters just come here to read and not respond. But, again, I think you are entirely wrong. And one of the ways i think you know, deep down, that you're wrong is the fact that you only cite two of the instances where the Clinton's tried to label Obama The Black Candidate.

You cite the MLK remark and the fairy tale.

the fairy tale, i agree, was blown out of proportion. Slick Willie was speaking about his Iraq record before making the comment, "this whole thing has been the biggest fairy tale i've ever seen." was he talking about Obama the candidate or Obama's Iraq record? Bill says Iraq, so let's take him at his word because, after all, President Clinton has never lied to us before, right?

Even still, calling someone a fairy tale isn't code word for racist, it's just kind of small for a former president to say.

MLK comment: Hillary's attempted point was: Obama can talk, but a President has the power. Obama is black, King was black, Clinton is white, Johnson was white. she made the statement to Fox News, which, in itself is not evidence of anything except...what the fuck? Fox News, the same company whose chairman called Obama the "magic negro" at a huge fundraiser last year? Fine, let's give the Clinton's a pass on that one tOo, and say that it wasn't an attempt to reduce Obama's candidacy to simply another instance of a preachy (black) man who can move a crowd.

But what's evident in your response is the lack of defense for all the other statements made by Team Clinton.

> Did he sell cocaine?
> Is he a Muslim?
> If you want a "cool black friend," vote Obama
> after SC, surrogates said one of the effects of the campaign was that Obama was now seen as "The Black Candidate"
> and who can forget Bill Clinton saying: Jesse Jackson won SC twice

Dick Morris, who worked for the Clintons for years, predicted they would play the race card on Obama a loooong time before it came to pass. He would know, he was a slimy creature for the Clintons for years.

Point being: just ask yourself, if you're Hillary Clinton and you just lose to a black guy in lily-white iowa, and just barely eek out a victory in lily-white NH, what's the only way you can try to slow this person down? you have to create difference. you have to divide and conquer.

its the same thing that Clinton attempted to do with AAs and Latinos, talking about how historically the two groups have not been able to come together in politics.

Just face it man, for all his flaws, BHO has at least tried to run an inclusive campaign; at every turn, HRC and Co. have tried to 1) play the gender card; 2) play the race card; 3) and divide AAs and Latinos.

Wake the fuck up.

Posted by Enough | March 2, 2008 11:18 PM

Ok, Tim K.

I always try to keep an open mind about these types of things. And its true, Sen. Clinton's suppport is much less than Obama on the Atlantic's blogroll; unless Sen. Clinton's supporters just come here to read and not respond. But, again, I think you are entirely wrong. And one of the ways i think you know, deep down, that you're wrong is the fact that you only cite two of the instances where the Clinton's tried to label Obama The Black Candidate.

You cite the MLK remark and the fairy tale.

the fairy tale, i agree, was blown out of proportion. Slick Willie was speaking about his Iraq record before making the comment, "this whole thing has been the biggest fairy tale i've ever seen." was he talking about Obama the candidate or Obama's Iraq record? Bill says Iraq, so let's take him at his word because, after all, President Clinton has never lied to us before, right?

Even still, calling someone a fairy tale isn't code word for racist, it's just kind of small for a former president to say.

MLK comment: Hillary's attempted point was: Obama can talk, but a President has the power. Obama is black, King was black, Clinton is white, Johnson was white. she made the statement to Fox News, which, in itself is not evidence of anything except...what the fuck? Fox News, the same company whose chairman called Obama the "magic negro" at a huge fundraiser last year? Fine, let's give the Clinton's a pass on that one too, and say that it wasn't an attempt to reduce Obama's candidacy to simply another instance of a preachy (black) man who can move a crowd.

But what's evident in your response is the lack of defense for all the other statements made by Team Clinton.

> Did he sell cocaine?
> Is he a Muslim?
> If you want a "cool black friend," vote Obama
> after SC, surrogates said one of the effects of the campaign was that Obama was now seen as "The Black Candidate"
> and who can forget Bill Clinton saying: Jesse Jackson won SC twice

Dick Morris, who worked for the Clintons for years, predicted they would play the race card on Obama a loooong time before it came to pass. He would know, he was a slimy creature for the Clintons for years.

Point being: just ask yourself, if you're Hillary Clinton and you just lose to a black guy in lily-white iowa, and just barely eek out a victory in lily-white NH, what's the only way you can try to slow this person down? you have to create difference. you have to divide and conquer.

its the same thing that Clinton attempted to do with AAs and Latinos, talking about how historically the two groups have not been able to come together in politics.

Just face it man, for all his flaws, BHO has at least tried to run an inclusive campaign; at every turn, HRC and Co. have tried to 1) play the gender card; 2) play the race card; 3) and divide AAs and Latinos.

Wake the fuck up.

Posted by Enough | March 2, 2008 11:20 PM

"That's because it's true. No white or female candidate with his level of experience would have gotten this far. The historic nature of his candidacy and white guilt has meant he isn't being judged simply on the basis of individual merit."

This is really getting bad. I guess it's HRC supporters who want "their hero or no one". I know Tim K has endured a lot of abuse on this site, but he really doesn't have to swallow all of this garbage, and end up hating another Democrat, because the poor up-by-her-bootstraps Wellesley girl isn't getting all the presidency that she's entitled to.

HRC is probably the only candidate in memory that is actually getting sympathy points in the middle of the ongoing race. The whole argument has to do with this dumb, baseless argument about experience. HRC whining that experience isn't playing like it should is like Jonah Goldberg complaining that pundits aren't being hired based on academic and journalistic merit.

White guilt? The GOP gets to say that they're "colorblind" while race bating in every election. But if liberals want to move past the American hangups over race, it's all because of the white guilt (of course Obama would not be winning if blacks hadn't moved from Hillary to him, so I guess it's not all white guilt). Republicans and Hillary supporters would love to have a black president. But the GOP demands that he be a conservative; Hillary just wants him to get to the back of the line.

Posted by Colatina | March 2, 2008 11:36 PM

Enough:

You better wake up.

as he talking about Obama the candidate or Obama's Iraq record? Bill says Iraq, so let's take him at his word because, after all, President Clinton has never lied to us before, right?

No, I'm not going to let you get away with that under-handed tactic. There's no reason at all to believe he was referring to Obama being black. He wasn't even referring to Obama the man at all. He said "this thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever heard." So the answer is he was referring to Iraq. There's no debate.

You better wake up.

On the MLK remarks you once again twist and distort the story to fit what you want to see based on circumstantial details alone. If you make it sound like Hillary randomly brought up Martin Luther King. In fact, it was Obama who was quoting JFK and MLK in his speeches, and implicitly comparing himself to them. Hillary pointed out that JFK had a lot more experience than Obama, and that MLK marched and was gassed and did much more than simply make speeches. You forgot that part. Her point was that you need a president to get certain things done, and EVERY president has been a white man.

You better wake up.

When did the Clinton campaign ask if he were a Muslim?

You better wake up.

Bill Clintons comparison between Jesse Jackson's victories in 1984 and 1998 and the Obama victory in 2008 were apt. It was an accurate comparison.

You better wake up.

Dick Morris has become a ferocious and vile critic of Hillary's over the past few years. He says ludicrous things like labeling her a "European-style Socialist." And he has no relationship to the Clintons and hasn't since 1996, so why would he know? The Clintons have no history of playing the race card, with the possible exception of the Sista Soulja incident. A strategy, by the way, Obama would be smart to repeat with Louis Farrakhan.

You better wake up about Barack Obama, too.

We're not talking about somebody who represents a new kind of politics. We're talking about a man who was elected to his safe Democratic state senate seat by having all four of his primary opponents disqualified by challenging their signatures with the help of a Harvard educated lawyer. It's also worth asking exactly how the campaigns of both his main 2004 primary opponent, Blair Hull, and his main Republican opponent in the general election, Jack Ryan, both imploded when their divorce records were released conveniently at just the right moment.

Talk about "the politics of hope."

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 11:37 PM

Tim K: "Her point was that you need a president to get certain things done, and EVERY president has been a white man."

Well, I guess that proves Tim K isn't going to "wake up". If that wasn't a racist attack on Obama, I don't know what is. If Tim K is simply arguing that Obama can't win because he's black, say so, don't try to conceal it under some nonsense about MLK. And that argument condemns Clinton quite clearly as playing the race card.

"We're talking about a man who was elected to his safe Democratic state senate seat by having all four of his primary opponents disqualified by challenging their signatures with the help of a Harvard educated lawyer. It's also worth asking exactly how the campaigns of both his main 2004 primary opponent, Blair Hull, and his main Republican opponent in the general election, Jack Ryan, both imploded when their divorce records were released conveniently at just the right moment."

Sounds like Obama is one smart politician. Like Vladimir Putin. I've always said we should run Putin for President here in 2008 and George Galloway for VP. At the least, we'd have SMART corrupt politicians instead of the corrupt moron we have now. If Obama can outwit his opponents as you allege, then he's obviously a great choice for President. I notice you didn't say that anything he did was either illegal or even immoral.

Or that you can even establish that the divorce records release was done by him, which according to this piece was done by a judge at the request of the media:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0622041ryans1.html

"JUNE 22--In what may prove a crippling blow to his U.S. Senate campaign, divorce records reveal that Illinois Republican Jack Ryan was accused by his former wife, actress Jeri Ryan, of pressuring her to have sex at swinger's clubs in New York, Paris, and New Orleans while other patrons watched. The bombshell allegation is contained amidst nearly 400 pages of records ordered released yesterday by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge who ruled on media requests to unseal documents from the Ryan case. The salacious charge leveled at the politician was made by Jeri Ryan, who has starred in TV's "Star Trek: Voyager" and "Boston Public," in a court filing in connection with child custody proceedings (you'll find a portion of that heavily redacted September 2000 document below). The performer alleged that she refused Ryan's requests for public sex during the excursions, which included a trip to a New York club "with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling." While Ryan, a former Goldman Sachs executive, confirmed the trips with the actress, he described them simply as "romantic getaways," denying her claims that he sought public sex. The politician has repeatedly claimed that his divorce file--portions of which were sealed in 2000 and 2001--contained no embarrassing information that would harm his chances against Democratic nominee Barack Obama. The Ryans were married in 1991 and, in November 1998, Jeri Ryan filed for divorce citing "irreconcilable differences." Another unsealed document reveals that Jeri Ryan, as part of the divorce settlement, received about $20 million in Goldman Sachs stock, while Jack Ryan retained a $40 million stake in the investment giant."

Wikipedia also has this lovely note:

"Controversially, in 2004, Ryan had Justin Warfel (a campaign worker) follow his opponent, Barack Obama, twenty-four hours a day and record everything he did in public on videotape. Warfel did not follow Obama into his office or private residences, but he recorded Obama at all other times. Warfel also heckled Obama by yelling questions at him in public. The tactic backfired when many people, including Ryan's supporters, criticized this activity. Ryan eventually withdrew Warfel but did not apologize"

Also, the records business is described as follows:

"Ryan married actress Jeri Ryan in 1991; together they have a son, Alex Ryan. They divorced in 1999 in California, and the records of the divorce were sealed at their mutual request. Five years later, when Ryan's Senate campaign began, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have the records released. Both Ryan and his wife agreed to make their divorce records public, but not make the custody records public, claiming that the custody records could be harmful to their son if released.

On June 22, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider agreed to release the custody files. In those files, Jeri Ryan alleged that Jack Ryan had taken her to sex clubs in several cities, intending for them to have sex in public.[1] The decision to release these files generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request and because it reversed the earlier decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child.

Shortly before the records were made public, the head of the Illinois Republican party, Judy Barr Topinka, called Ryan in and asked him if there was anything potentially damaging in the papers. Ryan told her that there wasn't. After the records were made public, Congressman Ray LaHood of the 18th District immediately called on Ryan to drop out of the race, in large part because Ryan had lied to Topinka.[citation needed] By June 25, Dennis Hastert, another prominent Illinois Republican (and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives) had "made some calls", according to anonymous sources reported in the Daily Southtown, and the consensus was for Ryan to step aside. The Southtown newspaper also reported that Ryan was expected to step aside."

But Tim K has "proof" that this was all Obama's doing? When it is clear that Ryan both lied to his Republican leadership and that the Republican leadership was then responsible for forcing him out of the race?

So where is this proof?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 3, 2008 12:24 AM

Hey Tim. You seem to be implying that Obama somehow set Ryan up with the release of his divorce records. I live in Chicago, and have followed Obama's career for a while, but that's one conspiracy theory I've missed. Do you have a cite? Any evidence at all? Or are you just pulling this stuff out of your butt?

And what on earth is it with this "You better wake up" crap? Get a grip, man. Basing your entire campaign on some sort of insane false consciousness theory will get you exactly where Clinton is now; losing big time and unable to figure out why.

Your schtick about how Obama wouldn't have a chance if he weren't black is also getting extremely old. He has a pretty unique life story which is certainly part of his charm as a candidate. He's also one of the best speakers we've had in American public life in the last twenty years at least. He's also an amazing organizer. He's winning because he's out-campaigned Clinton at every turn. Or do you think he somehow used nefarious, underhanded means to make her overpay for parking spaces, hire Mark Penn, and fail to develop a good ground game in Iowa?

I happen to despise Clinton, but lots of smart folks like her, and you're certainly welcome to your opinion. I wish you'd spend more time talking about why you liked her, and less with these hysterical and increasingly unhinged attacks on Obama. Maybe you could learn from Petey? I don't agree with his points, but they're logical, and presented with a minimum of vitriol....

Oh, and I'd say the Clinton's do have a history of playing the race card when it suits them. Not only was there Sister Soulja, but there was Bill's race back to Arkansas to execute that mentally-handicapped convict; and then, of course, there was welfare reform, which was a lot about triangulating against poor blacks...I think there's some evidence that they'll do it when it suits them, actually. Or so it seems to me.

Posted by NoahB | March 3, 2008 12:30 AM