Speaking Up

Item number 4 on Mark Halrpin's list of painful things Hillary Clinton knows -- or should know:

4. Nancy Pelosi and other leading members of Congress don’t think she can win and want her to give up. Same with superdelegate-to-the-stars Donna Brazile.

Pelosi has certainly said and done some things that have "signaled" this, as we say in DC, but I think that insofar as it's really true that she and "other leading members of Congress" think this, they need to communicate it more clearly.

After all, consider the situation in Pennsylvania. All indications are that a clear majority of Pennsylvania Democrats would prefer for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee than for Barack Obama to be the nominee. But there are few indications that they understand the real structure of the race -- that a miracle Obama comeback in PA would mean that Democrats enter May with a nominee and a financial advantage, whereas a sizable Clinton win in PA may mean that Democrats don't get a nominee until August and that that nominee, who'll almost certainly be Barack Obama anyway, will have a much tougher time winning in November. I think if voters better-understood the situation, they'd be much more inclined to vote for their second-favorite Democrat in the race, much less eager to do volunteer work for Clinton, much less inclined to donate money to her campaign, etc. But people won't understand the dynamic unless it's explained to them by credible party leaders.

Comments

. . . unless it's explained to them by credible party leaders.

I agree. Though the media might eventually explain it well, once they run out of other storylines.

Here's the cherry on top of Matt's argument: Everyone talks about the convention being "in August." That's not the worst of it! The convention is LATE August -- Aug 25-28th. If we don't have a nominee till it's two months and change before the general election, we are absolutely toast.

Posted by Ted | March 23, 2008 9:31 AM

Senator Obama is quite willing to throw his maternal grandmother under the bus in order to win the nomination. Not even Senator McCain or Senator Clinton is willing to go that far.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/12728.htm

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 9:33 AM

Dear Matt: You realize you're talking about Democratic party leaders, right? The ones who've been so bold and decisive in Congress since taking control? This group is going to keep its heads as far down in their foxholes as possible until actually forced by events, like being on national TV at the convention, to make a decision. They know it's stupid, but their innate gutlessness will rule.
I bet some of 'em vote "present" on the first ballot.

Posted by JMG | March 23, 2008 9:33 AM

Dear Matt: You realize you're talking about Democratic party leaders, right? The ones who've been so bold and decisive in Congress since taking control? This group is going to keep its heads as far down in their foxholes as possible until actually forced by events, like being on national TV at the convention, to make a decision. They know it's stupid, but their innate gutlessness will rule.
I bet some of 'em vote "present" on the first ballot.

Posted by JMG | March 23, 2008 9:34 AM

My guess is that ostensibly pro-Obama leaders such as Pelosi and Gore believe they'll have a better chance of influencing and organizing superdelegates later in the game if they stay officially neutral while Clinton still has a shot, however remote.

If Obama rolls out all the biggest guns in the party before Pennsylvania, and still loses by 15%, their influence may be lessened when the unofficial superdelegate primary really starts happening.

Wait until May 6. After that, only a handful of smallish states and Puerto Rico remain. Unless Clinton pulls off a big upset in North Carolina, the pledged delegate writing will be on the wall by then. That may be when the pro-Obama big shots make their move.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 23, 2008 9:36 AM

They're locked in a bitter struggle that I predict will continue right through the Democratic convention, and then through the November presidential election. Next January President McCain will be giving his inaugural address, while somewhere else in America, Clinton and Obama will be holding their 1,387th debate, with the hostility level between them having reached the point where the debate consists entirely of spitting.

From Dave Barry. I think JMG is absolutely right, but maybe the party leaders could read the wise analysis of both Mr. Barry and Mr. Halperin and actually bring this race to an end before 2012.

Posted by Deborah | March 23, 2008 9:39 AM

That McCain, whose policy position on almost every major issue run counter to those of the majority of the American public, is slightly ahead of both Obama and Clinton in many polls, is deeply troubling.

I know it won't happen, but I would like to see a deadlocked convention because I'm becoming increasingly skeptical about whether Hillary or Obama can win the presidency.

In this fantasy, the party would then turn to to Al Gore to unite both factions.

Posted by Rich | March 23, 2008 9:40 AM

Those who aren't busy celebrating Easter, and need some other miracle to celebrate, may enjoy checking this link as the day wears on:

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/smartproxy/my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sofar08_lp/graphic

Remember the amazement when Obama crossed the 1-million-donor mark? He's about to cross 2 mil. Apparently a lot of people liked last week's speech.

Posted by Ted | March 23, 2008 9:45 AM

Re Rich

Mr. Rich is absolutely correct. Neither Senator Clinton or Senator Obama can beat McCain because the country is not ready for a black or female president. The only hope is a deadlocked convention which turns to Al Gore who can win.

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 9:46 AM

credible party leaders
Who would that be? Gore? Edwards? Carter? They all would be dismissed as being anti Clinton.

Posted by bjd | March 23, 2008 9:47 AM

Well, personally I don't care all that much whether it's St. Barack or Hillary Satanus, since I don't really like either of them.

But maybe all you nitwits should actually see what the *voters* say before you become overly wedded to your choice.

Pennsylvania is a very large state, and an important one, in that a Democrat that can't win PA is dead-meat in November.

Barack will massively outspend Hillary there, and he has a full month to work his speechifying magic. As I've said before, if he can stay within 20 points of her among non-black Democrats, then go ahead and nominate him without fear. But if he loses by much more than 20 points, the Supers should just flush him down the toilet.

That's the sort of thing the old "Reality-Based" Matt would probably be saying, but these days he's just a cheerleader without the miniskirt and pompoms...

Posted by RKU | March 23, 2008 9:53 AM

Richardson's call for party unity was the first step. Expect to see more of that. Obama is not far from taking the lead in superdelegates, as well as pledged delegates. Once he does that, what Matt calls "the structure of the race" will become much clearer.

In the meantime, don't listen to counsels of despair.

Posted by Ted | March 23, 2008 9:54 AM

Obviously, the party leaders are hoping Obama bails them out by winning one of Clinton's hand-picked contests, despite the fact Clinton is picking the ones she thinks she can't lose.

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 10:05 AM

In this fantasy, the party would then turn to to Al Gore to unite both factions.
Posted by Rich

Nothing has been better for Gore's image as a master politician than his removal from politics. Nominate him and everyone will start to remember that, while he's not Bush, neither is anyone else in the race.

Nominate anyone else and the same vetting issues arise.

Mr. Rich is absolutely correct. Neither Senator Clinton or Senator Obama can beat McCain because the country is not ready for a black or female president. The only hope is a deadlocked convention which turns to Al Gore who can win.
Posted by SLC

I'm sure that's what some analysts in every state with a black or woman governor or senator or other statewide office holder were saying just before the voters actually went and voted for them. And after, for that matter.

Clinton's woman problem is dwarfed by her Clinton problem.

And catering to the perceived prejudices of an electorate is no way to win an election. Rather, it's a way to be trampled as the voters blythely let history roll in--not thinking "I'll vote for the X" but "I'll vote for the candidate who's better on my issues." There's a real confusion about affirmative action here--that comes from top-down. Electing candidates comes from the bottom up. (To Clintons: No, really! That's how it works.) If voters are electing someone from group X, then voters are ready to elect someone from group X.

Pennsylvania is a very large state, and an important one, in that a Democrat that can't win PA is dead-meat in November.
Barack will massively outspend Hillary there, and he has a full month to work his speechifying magic. As I've said before, if he can stay within 20 points of her among non-black Democrats, then go ahead and nominate him without fear. But if he loses by much more than 20 points, the Supers should just flush him down the toilet.
--RKU

Hey, Mark Penn reads here!

Actually the entire country is NOT represented by Pennsylvania. Other states get to vote! In fact, IN and NC have more delegates at stake, and they vote only 2 weeks later. Not to mention there are many coalitions of winning states that can be put together in November, and putting it all down to one is a losing proposition.

No matter how many little fantasies are spun on "If Obama can't win PA by such and such, he's obliged to step down" by Hillary supporters, he can actually afford to lose every contest between now and June. Arguing that the winner of PA and PR is clearly the possessor momentum in late August and thus November is....well, in any introductory logic class, I don't think that would get a pass.

Posted by Deborah | March 23, 2008 10:07 AM

By the way, I remember back when RKU was saying Obama had to win 1/3 of the white vote overall. Then it was he had to win 40%. Now apparently he has to keep it within 20 points, exclusive of non-Democrats, in one of Clinton's hand-picked states.

Those are some very movable goal-posts.

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 10:11 AM

"After all, consider the situation in Pennsylvania. All indications are that a clear majority of Pennsylvania Democrats would prefer for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee than for Barack Obama to be the nominee. But there are few indications that they understand the real structure of the race"

Spoken like a true Obama supporter.

The Democratic electorate prefers Clinton to Obama, but the rich goo-goos like Matthew know what's better for them.

The clear majority of Democrats of Pennsylvania want a President who'll push forward universal healthcare, not a cowardly candidate like Barack Obama who runs Harry and Louise ads attacking universal healthcare.

But trust fund "Democrats" like Matthew Yglesias know better than the Democratic electorate does. After all, if Matthew has a health problem, daddy's moneybags will get him treatment. So he's got no problem telling blue collar Dems to go fuck themselves.

Posted by Petey | March 23, 2008 10:12 AM

if he can stay within 20 points of her among non-black Democrats, then go ahead and nominate him without fear. But if he loses by much more than 20 points, the Supers should just flush him down the toilet.

This is simply ridiculous. If Clinton can't get 20% of the black vote should she be flushed down the toilet?

Posted by bjd | March 23, 2008 10:12 AM

Barack Obama's plan makes healthcare every bit as available and affordable as Hillary Clinton's plan, and, as a bonus, would have a far greater chance of actually being passed because of its lack of mandates for adults.

But don't let facts get in the way, Petey, as usual, when there's a chance to be self-righteous and insulting. There's no mystery as to why a reason-challenged thug such as you supports the Clintons.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 23, 2008 10:16 AM

To clarify, I think the country would elect a black or a female president, but both Obama and Hillary are too susceptible to being smeared. With Obama, it's as a result of the Wright connection, with Hillary, it's as a result of being a Clinton.

Posted by Rich | March 23, 2008 10:17 AM

Matthew,

You are fully aware that Clinton backers at this point can't be reasoned with. They are, like Bush dead enders, deranged psychopaths. Now, most Obama supporters aren't that much better - this whole nation has gone insane. And the United States will reap the whirlwind. I don't like it, but it's true. I only fear it will take the rest of the world with it.

Posted by LarryM | March 23, 2008 10:26 AM

Re LarryM

This is why the only hope to stop Senator McCains' march to the White House is for a deadlocked convention to turn to Al Gore. Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are almost certain losers.

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 10:42 AM

Matt,

Perhaps the voters in PA have considered those facts, and simply don't want to see someone anointed who chose to spend 20 years being associated with a hate monger. There's a difference between giving a speech at a location (like, say, Bob Jones University) and deciding to call someone your spiritual mentor.

It's also quite telling that Obama would rather throw his grandmother under a bus than fully renounce Wright. If any white man had a similarly racist association that he refused to disavow, his political career at the national level would be over. What this demonstrates more than anything else is something truly sad about the left: its willingness to hold blacks to a lower standard.

That says a few things about the left, and - in this context - about Yglesias. None of them good, either.

Posted by James Robertson | March 23, 2008 10:43 AM

This is simply ridiculous. If Clinton can't get 20% of the black vote should she be flushed down the toilet?

You do understand that far more whites vote than blacks, don't you? I understand the Obama campaign has encouraged people to look for racism in every comment that doesn't fellate Obama, but there's a difference between seeing the outcome of the white vote as more indicative because it's a numbers game and because one feels black people aren't as valuable.

Posted by john | March 23, 2008 10:44 AM

"If any white man had a similarly racist association that he refused to disavow, his political career at the national level would be over."

Yes, because Jerry Falwell was political poison to everyone who associated with him.

Posted by justaguy | March 23, 2008 10:49 AM

Mr. Rich is absolutely correct. Neither Senator Clinton or Senator Obama can beat McCain because the country is not ready for a black or female president. The only hope is a deadlocked convention which turns to Al Gore who can win.

Maybe Al Gore can invent another internet where you can make your idiotic comments. Take your drive-by trolling elsewhere, thanks.

Posted by Throwing SLC under the bus | March 23, 2008 10:52 AM

"But trust fund "Democrats" like Matthew Yglesias know better than the Democratic electorate does. After all, if Matthew has a health problem, daddy's moneybags will get him treatment. So he's got no problem telling blue collar Dems to go fuck themselves."

My error. Matthew has no problem telling blue collar Dems that they're racist for voting their economic interests.

But Matthew has a lot more money than the Democrats who are voting for Clinton. So therefore, he must be right.

-----

Fucking trust fund "professional Democrats" who think American politics is all about their personal amusement and/or their personal advancement ought to pick another profession.

Posted by Petey | March 23, 2008 10:53 AM

john,
First, your statement is false, second it is vile.
My point was that creating some bizarre white/black voter test based on polling data is absurd.

Posted by bjd | March 23, 2008 10:55 AM

Yes, Matthew thinks American politics is all about his personal amusement Petey, and you think America's murder of an entire country is something we should all just forget about.

Posted by mad6798j | March 23, 2008 10:57 AM

But trust fund "Democrats" like Matthew Yglesias know better than the Democratic electorate does. After all, if Matthew has a health problem, daddy's moneybags will get him treatment. So he's got no problem telling blue collar Dems to go fuck themselves.-Petey

Spoken like a true Nader supporter.

Posted by Jake | March 23, 2008 10:57 AM

Watching the Democratic party infighting (supporters, pols, and surrogates alike) is an extraordinary study.

Is there some course available at super lefty universities that teaches you all how to completely fuck up?

Posted by DDP | March 23, 2008 11:00 AM

Re James Robertson

How about Senator McCains' enthusiastic welcome of the endorsement by the Reverend John Hagee, whose remarks about the Roman Catholic Church rival anything uttered by the Reverend Wright. Remember the Rum, Romanism and Rebellion comment by a James C. Blaine supporter which cost him the 1884 election?

Re Throwing SLC under the bus

Mr. Throwing SLC under the bus is politely encouraged to shove his comment up his posterior orifice.

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 11:00 AM

justaguy:

Last time I looked, Falwell never ran for a national office, and none of the Republicans associated with him attended his church for 2 decades, had him officiate as their marriage, and had their children sit in his church every Sunday for many years.

But hey, thanks for playing.

Posted by James Robertson | March 23, 2008 11:01 AM

Yeah, McCain wasn't married by Falwell, he sought him out based on his political views. So, you're saying that its better to seek out someone who is racist and thinks that 9/11 was a act of God's justice as a political ally? That in doing so you aren't associating yourself with their political views?

Yeah, I get it, you're just throwing anything out there to paint Obama as uniquely tarnished as a candidate, but it doesn't really fly.

Posted by justaguy | March 23, 2008 11:08 AM

And the last time I looked Robertson, Falwell, Hagge were all invited into the White house under Bush. This was after Falwell and Robertson both said 911 was caused homosexuals and heathens.

Posted by bjd | March 23, 2008 11:09 AM

> To clarify, I think the country would elect a
> black or a female president, but both Obama and
> Hillary are too susceptible to being smeared.

The Radical Right /owns the media/ and has entire teams of people working in back room to develop smears which are then handed over to their captive media for broadcast and pumping. **Any and every** Democratic candidate will be smeared, and every time in a way that neither you nor the candidate saw coming. Get used to it and don't let that affect your decision.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | March 23, 2008 11:10 AM

I understand the "real structure" and most likely will vote for Hillary in April and look for the superdelegates to throw the race her way if Obama takes a pounding in the final primaries. I think both HRC and Obama would produce policies I like but am giving Hillary the nod for the following reasons:

1. Experience - not bogus 3AM phone call / sniper fire kind of experience but knowing the ropes, hitting the ground running and not having to make rookie mistakes kind of experience. Big edge to her for having Bill as her closest adviser.

2. Electability - Obama doesn't have the resume to overcome question marks like Jeremiah Wright. For all the pretty speeches, many people are simply not going to trust him enough to put him in the White House. You don't get that kind of benefit of the doubt for CIC. Obama also has a Jimmy Carter factor to overcome. Too much of a dreamer. Hillary may be castor oil to some but few are wondering if she secretly "hates America" or can handle the job. People understand medicine doesn't always taste good.

I'll pull the primary lever for Hillary and hope she can pull off the Hail Mary. Obama for Veep or SecState.

Posted by Undecided | March 23, 2008 11:10 AM

mad6798j,

You're being unfair to Petey. He doesn't think "America's murder of an entire country is something we should all just forget about;" rather, he thinks that "America's murder of an entire country" should be actively embraced as a way to get us UHC.

Making Petey the most morally repellent person who posts here regularly. And with clowns like Chris Ford and Al, that's saying something.

Posted by LarryM | March 23, 2008 11:13 AM

I'm saying that

-- attaching oneself to a racist maniac for 2 decades
-- exposing your children to said maniac
-- throwing one of the women who raised you under a bus rather than disavow him

is worse, yes. Especially given that McCain (and mind you, I dislike McCain fairly intensely) did not "seek out" Falwell. Nor did he "seek out" Hagee, who at least is somewhat more topical, given that he's alive.

When you find a national Republican figure who has attached himself to a racist demogogue for 2 decades - as Obama has - let me know. I expect you'll be looking for awhile.

As to "throwing something at Obama", I don't much care for his campaign, no. Then again, I don't trust Hillary as far as I can throw her, and I despise McCain based on his inability to read the rather simple text of the First Amendment.

Posted by James Robertson | March 23, 2008 11:14 AM

I think if voters better-understood the situation, they'd be much more inclined to vote for their second-favorite Democrat in the race, much less eager to do volunteer work for Clinton, much less inclined to donate money to her campaign, etc.

hahahahah. You are out of your gourd. Are you really that dense?

If Nancy Pelosi went to Pennsylvania and said "Hillary can't win. If you vote for her, you are just making it more difficult for Obama to win in November", Hillary would win the state by a bigger margin.

While I agree with those who say that the superdelegates aren't organized, that's not the reason why they haven't come forward. They haven't come forward because they know that the Democratic voters will not stop supporting Clinton.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 11:16 AM

According to the CBS poll, "Among voters who have followed the Wright controversy, only 14% said they were less likely to vote for Obama as a result — with an equal 14% saying they were more likely to vote for him, and 70% saying it would make no difference."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/cbs_poll_has_mostly_good_news.php

That's out of a sample of registered voters, not just Democrats. It sounds to me like most Americans are less interested in nursing racial resentment than they are in moving on and solving our collective problems.

I'm not sure that's equally true of a sample of people who post on comment threads, though, so I think I'll move on myself.

Posted by Ted | March 23, 2008 11:19 AM

"If Nancy Pelosi went to Pennsylvania and said "Hillary can't win. If you vote for her, you are just making it more difficult for Obama to win in November", Hillary would win the state by a bigger margin."

I wouldn't expect that to happen. But if she and other leading Democrats started saying things like, "The primary voters have spoken, there is a clear winner and there is no chance of Clinton overcoming him in the remaining state contests." You would see a shift in the media narrative - from Hillary as the fighter to Hillary as the lost cause - that would dry up her fundraising and make her campaign deflate before too long.

Posted by justaguy | March 23, 2008 11:30 AM

If only we all could have blue-collar, working-class street cred of Petey, who we can only assume is a burly and calloused factory-worker from Cleveland who manages to troll any number of blogs on a near-constant basis even as he operates the heavy machinery on the assembly line.

...either that or he's an unemployed 20-something living in Mom and Dad's basement.

But who am I to judge?

Posted by Trust fund Democrat | March 23, 2008 11:35 AM

Ted, that Donor Counter link you used apparently may point to a counter that isn't working properly.

Which may explain how the campaign could conceivably be nearing 2 million without more of a buzz. Most likely explanation: the lack of a buzz is because it isn't happening.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 23, 2008 11:42 AM

Petey is an idiot, but at least he has a reason to vote for Clinton (however illegitimate). Everyone else I hear is "She's a woman" or "her last name."

BTW, you should hear the white people at Trinity United. They're outraged that people are suggesting that Wright hates white people.

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 23, 2008 11:53 AM

Even after the whole Wright issue, Obama still has higher positives than both Clintons, up around 60%, compared to around 45% now for Bill Clinton. As much as FoxNews wants it to be a bigger issue, their audience isn't that large. Their audience is the mouth-breathing faction who bought Jonah Goldberg's book, so they would never vote for a Democrat and think Hillary Clinton is a Nazi communist anyway. Even after all of this, he moved up ahead of her in the most recent Gallup poll and he has the same margin against McCain that she does - in the worst week of the campaign for him. Despite all of the trolls on the internet and Steve Sailer posting his diatribes everywhere, no one who isn't munching on cookies in the FoxNews green room really cares. Even Chris Wallace has voiced annoyance over the media's fascination with stupid shit over Obama. This adds up to the fact that the media's attempts to smear him haven't actually made a real impact.

"1. Experience - not bogus 3AM phone call / sniper fire kind of experience but knowing the ropes, hitting the ground running and not having to make rookie mistakes kind of experience. Big edge to her for having Bill as her closest adviser.

2. Electability - Obama doesn't have the resume to overcome question marks like Jeremiah Wright. For all the pretty speeches, many people are simply not going to trust him enough to put him in the White House. You don't get that kind of benefit of the doubt for CIC. Obama also has a Jimmy Carter factor to overcome. Too much of a dreamer. Hillary may be castor oil to some but few are wondering if she secretly "hates America" or can handle the job. People understand medicine doesn't always taste good.

I'll pull the primary lever for Hillary and hope she can pull off the Hail Mary. Obama for Veep or SecState.

Posted by Undecided | March 23, 2008 11:10 AM"

I still have no idea what this whole "experience" thing is. He has a deeper legislative record in the Senate than her. Her experience in actually being involved politically in the Clinton White House mostly ended in 1994 in a disaster. After that, she tried to do things like kill S-CHIP until Kennedy and, of all people, Hatch had to show her it was their way or the highway while First Lady. She hasn't really done anything in the Senate. What is her experience? Plus, a lot of people actually think she hates America. A lot of Americans think she's secretly a communist who wants to socialize everything in sight. Why do you think Rush Limbaugh wants his listeners to vote for her in the primary? The GOP needs us to nominate their punching bag.

Also, if you actually have the time, go and watch the Wright videos. When he was talking about people jumping out of the Twin Towers to their deaths, he didn't seem to me to be a man who was happy Americans were dying, but instead a man who sounded on the verge of tears over innocent people being murdered on 9/11. You don't have to agree with the man's larger point about violence begetting violence, but the attempts to make him into Che have been a bit misplaced. People who were surprised by his comments just really don't understand black Protestantism in America.

Posted by Reality Man | March 23, 2008 11:54 AM

I think if voters better-understood the situation, they'd be much more inclined to vote for their second-favorite Democrat in the race, much less eager to do volunteer work for Clinton, much less inclined to donate money to her campaign, etc.

I am quite sure that if, in November, Democratic voters also vote for their second favorite candidate, then McCain will be a shoe-in.

As it is, Democratic voters are being told to settle for second rate health plans and second rate economic policies and second rate Iraq policies.

T%ere is a funny thing called "democracy," which means that the party should reflect the will of the voters. The voters in Pennsylvania - as well as those in Florida and Michigan - should be heard - and in full.

It is too bad for the Democratic establishment that their projected "Iowa New Hampshire" coronation did not occur. And if Obama went along with that, then he is a dork. And if the Democrats can't take a robust, contested convention, then they are dorks.

Posted by McGruff | March 23, 2008 11:57 AM

Ahhh yes Pennsylvania Democrats, don't vote for your preference. That sort of democracy is so last year!
Vote Obama since he is going to win no matter what!
Even if he has to insure that neither MI nor FL get a legit vote in order to win well Pennsylvania voters should further delegitimize the primary process to feed his big ol' Our Black Saviour Who Will End The War In Iraq ego.

Of course if it was all so clear and set in stone one would think that the super delegates would announce for him now and end the process.
Hmmmm, I wonder why they don't?
Maybe they think that Wright and revelations to come will prove so damaging to Hussein that he can't win the GE and in fact HRC is the better candidate. Especially to all those "typical whites" Obama the Racist is so disdainful of?
Maybe they figure that Hussein's lies about Wright kinda sorta disqualify him from leading our new newer new national conversation about race and whatever?
Maybe they just don't want to sign onto the suicide pact being pushed by the netroots' enfants terrible determined to self aggrandizement no matter the losses to the party?
Or maybe they and a majority of Americans are simply tired of the Obama fairy tales not to mention the racist campaign that he and his fluffers like Brazille have been waging since declaring "fairy tale" a racist slur?

So yeah Pennsylvania voters now is the time to service Matt and his investment in Barak Hussein Obama and your own wishes be damned.
Get with his Nuevo Stalinista program!
Screw democracy!

Posted by JaimieT | March 23, 2008 11:58 AM

JaimieT, it's a lovely day outside here. I hope it is where you are, too, and I recommend that you get some fresh air. And maybe engage in some self-examination.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 23, 2008 12:06 PM

Re James Robertson

The difficulty with Hagee is that McCain appeared on a stage with him when Hagee endorsed him. Hagees' anti Roman Catholic rantings are far more serious for a Rethuglican candidate then the racism of Robertson and Falwell. This is because because most of the Reagan Democrats are Roman Catholics who may well reject McCain when they find out about his close connection with Hagee and the latters' virulently anti-Catholic rhetoric. McCain can't win without retaining most of those Reagan Democrats.

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 12:13 PM

JaimieT, it's a lovely day outside here. I hope it is where you are, too, and I recommend that you get some fresh air. And maybe engage in some self-examination.

What a nice little ad hominem.

And what makes you so swell?

Posted by Arone | March 23, 2008 12:16 PM

Undecided, what part of Clinton's campaign demonstrates that she doesn't make rookie mistakes? Or that Bill's advice keeps her from making mistakes?

They knew the 90s. Their adjustment to not-the-90s is barely started.

I'd point people toward Frank Rich's column in today's NYTimes. Clinton's Iraq speech got little coverage this week. One reason is that she isn't saying anything profound that engages the electorate on a grown-up level. She was still hoodwinked by Bush, still didn't think the Resulution to Use Armed Force was about using armed force, still it wasn't her fault....

Posted by Deborah | March 23, 2008 12:23 PM

But if she and other leading Democrats started saying things like, "The primary voters have spoken, there is a clear winner and there is no chance of Clinton overcoming him in the remaining state contests."

Wouldn't make a difference. If Clinton ran out of money, didn't make a single media buy, the media ignored her, and all she did was drive around in a car getting to as many events as she could and keep her name on the ballot, she would still win Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, be competitive in North Carolina (I think), and probably still win Indiana.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 12:25 PM

It makes me want to puke every time I hear some dumbass Clinton fan call him "Hussein." Who gives a shit what his middle name is? Firstly, your name is the one thing about you that you have no control over. And secondly, and more importantly, isn't using Hussein derogatorily saying you wouldn't vote for a Muslim person because he/she is Muslim? Is that really the side of history Clinton supporters want to be on- blatant xenophobia and racism?

Posted by ZednCu | March 23, 2008 12:27 PM

Thanks for reminding me I need to send Hillary some more money. And what Lambert at Corrente said:

"Why won't that stupid bitch quit?" watch
Submitted by lambert on Sun, 2008-03-23 12:20.

Great one from M.Y.. After quoting Mark Halperin without irony, we get this, also without irony:

I think if voters better-understood the situation, they’d be much more inclined to vote for their second-favorite Democrat in the race, much less eager to do volunteer work for Clinton, much less inclined to donate money to her campaign, etc. But people won’t understand the dynamic unless it’s explained to them by credible party leaders.

Broder-esque, totally. The wise men need to sit Hillary down and explain the way things work to Hillary, because dammit, those pesky voters keep voting for her.

Is it something in the water down there?"

Posted by tdraicer | March 23, 2008 12:39 PM

Cal

Great comments!

Hillary is a fighter unlike some of the leaders of the Democratic Party and the media. They have no backbone!

Posted by EWard | March 23, 2008 12:42 PM

Who gives a shit what his middle name is?

Obama, apparently. He's the guy who first brought it up--as a selling point.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 12:43 PM

Undecided, what part of Clinton's campaign demonstrates that she doesn't make rookie mistakes? Or that Bill's advice keeps her from making mistakes?

Definitely some mistakes and miscalculations but I don't think she's run that bad a campaign, she's just run into a better campaigner. Bill was also a better campaigner. Hillary is not a natural candidate but she's shown great resilience. The best campaigner does not necessarily equal the best President.

The Clinton Adminstation got a lot of good things done. I certainly don't buy into this blue sky concept that the Republicans are gonna fall in line behind Obama.

Posted by Undecided | March 23, 2008 12:48 PM

How can Geraldo Rivera lose his career as a tabloid journalist for making up a story about being under fire, but Hillary can become President?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c

Posted by Patrick | March 23, 2008 12:49 PM

JaimeT, no one is saying Pennsylvania voters shouldn't vote for ther preferred choice. Of course they should do so. But we should keep in mind that even if Clinton wins big there, Obama has enough huge wins to his credit that he will still win the most votes, and the most delegates leading up to the convention.

Posted by mad6798j | March 23, 2008 12:57 PM

Obama continues "misinterpreting" Clinton comments - claiming they're racists or intended to offend Obama.
So - apparently, Obama wants the primary to continue while he continues smearing Hillary with lies.

And once again, Obama proves he couldn't handle REAL attacks from the GOP.

Posted by Margaret | March 23, 2008 1:29 PM

Fucking trust fund "professional Democrats"

Stop lying, Petey. Really, just stop fucking lying.

It makes you look like Mark Penn, who's a 'professional Democrat' in the sense that it's just a fucking moneyspinner for him.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 23, 2008 1:29 PM

>Obama has enough huge wins to his credit that he will still win the most votes, and the most delegates leading up to the convention.

And? The rules (which the Obama people keep bringing up in regard to MI and FL) aren't that the person with the most delegates gets the nomination, but the person with a majority of all delegates (including the Supers) gets the nomination. And the rules are also that the Supers can vote for anyone they like for any reason they like. They were put there to save the party from a candidate who looked good in February but not in August. Now maybe in August Obama will have shored up his poll numbers-or maybe in August buyer's remorse will have really set in. But Obama hasn't closed the deal, and Hillary still has a very realistic path to the nomination.

And if the Obama supporters really believed otherwise, they'd be a lot more relaxed about her staying in the race.

Posted by tdraicer | March 23, 2008 1:31 PM

Yeah, the stupid voters!

Who do they think they are?

If only they would listen to the wisdom and intellect of Matt Yglesias, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, and the media.

They should vote for who they are told to vote for instead of who they would like to vote for.

Do they think they are living in a democracy? Look at the patriotic cuban voters. They vote for who they are told to vote for. Heck, even the Russian voters know who they should vote for and are patriotic enough to follow instructions.

Stupid Pennsylvania voters!

Posted by Tom | March 23, 2008 1:36 PM

she's just run into a better campaigner.

No, she ran into a black liberal who was able to combine caucuses and the south. He's done nothing that makes him "better", I don't think.

no one is saying Pennsylvania voters shouldn't vote for ther preferred choice.

What Matt is saying is that if the Democrats made it clear that Hillary wouldn't win, Obama would be their preferred choice. But that's because Matt starts each day with a big pitcher of purple Koolaid.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 1:37 PM

Oh, and James Robertson? When we want advice from a wingnut fuckhead, we'll ask for it.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 23, 2008 1:37 PM

To clarify, I think the country would elect a black or a female president, but both Obama and Hillary are too susceptible to being smeared. With Obama, it's as a result of the Wright connection, with Hillary, it's as a result of being a Clinton.

And for Max Cleland, it's a result of only having one limb.

You keep searching for that mythical candidate who can't be smeared by unsrupulous attacks from the right, Diogenes. Me, I'll support the candidate who I think would make the best president.

Posted by Jason F | March 23, 2008 1:42 PM

He's done nothing that makes him "better", I don't think.

With 'I don't think' as the operative phrase here.

Spare us, Cal. Clinton has campaigned in a way that narrows the electoral map to the states Kerry won plus Ohio. That's fucking stupid, given the Senate election calendar and the potential gains outside the 2004 blue states suggested by the 2006 mid-terms.

She has disparaged and demeaned the states she hasn't won, and set up repeated situations where she stands on a ledge and asks the voters to talk her out of jumping. That is no way to run a campaign.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 23, 2008 1:43 PM

I was an Edwards supporter - but considering Obama's propensity for race-baiting - we're now supporting Hillary.
Obama is dividing the Dem Party - and should get out now!!

Michelle Obama and Oprah first played the Race Card - then Obama with the media's assistance purposely misinterpreted Bill Clinton's comments as racist!!

Now - Obama has pulled the Communist Card!! - associating Bill Clinton with McCarthy.

The Clintons can no longer speak without being accused of racism or discrediting Obama.

One thing for sure - Obama is too thin skinned to be president.

Posted by Carla | March 23, 2008 1:44 PM

I'm probably a sucker too. After all blogs are in the end are about ad revenue not changing the country and posts like this no doubt tick reasonable people off and boost traffic.

But they also make me think that I shouldn't vote for Barack Obama if he is nominated.

Posted by Linus | March 23, 2008 1:49 PM

Obama continues his lies - claiming he was against the war "from the start."

Well - NO. He opposed the war when he couldn't vote - but voted with Repubs for 2 1/2 years to fund a war he "opposed" - until AFTER he became a presidential candidate.

Why does Obama LIE??
Does he think his supporters are that stupid?

Posted by Frank, PA | March 23, 2008 1:51 PM

Obama continues his lies - claiming he was against the war "from the start."

Well - NO. He opposed the war when he couldn't vote - but voted with Repubs for 2 1/2 years to fund a war he "opposed" - until AFTER he became a presidential candidate.

Why does Obama LIE??
Does he think his supporters are that stupid?

Posted by Frank, PA | March 23, 2008 1:51 PM

"When you find a national Republican figure who has attached himself to a racist demogogue for 2 decades - as Obama has - let me know. I expect you'll be looking for awhile."

Actually, I would argue that EVERY national Republican figure has attached himself to a racist demogogue for two decades: Ronald Reagan.

Mind you, Reagan's "racism" might be limited to a campaign stop in a certain town in Mississippi and a made-up story about "welfare queens", but he certainly had the demogoguery down pat. Even today the national discourse is coloured by his "evil empire" foreign policy, his support of the unworkable missile defense, and the war on drugs.

You might well argue that Reagan had many virtues that make a few out of context comments seem small in comparison, but - and this is the key point - so did Jeremiah Wright.

Posted by Splitting Image | March 23, 2008 1:56 PM

Every day I lose more faith in Americans. A member of Obama's staff said the Clintons are going after his patriotism (which was true), which is what McCarthy did (which was true). But let's forget that whole inconvenient truth part.

And Obama has explained his funding votes before, and called for a pullout in late 2005. Before Hillary did. Then, he proposed a plan for pulling out in early 2007. Before Hillary did.

I don't think either team has "played the race card" (save the Jesse Jackson comment). That was all the media.

"Obama continues "misinterpreting" Clinton comments - claiming they're racists or intended to offend Obama."

Find me a single quote of Obama claiming Clinton is a racist. One single quote.

Posted by We're Number 55 (in literacy) | March 23, 2008 2:01 PM

You mean the party leaders need to explain to the little people that they should vote for the candidate the political media selected some months ago? Even if those voters don't believe that candidate best represents THEIR interests and the best interests of the country?

Voters need to vote their preference. How else can those who run to represent them understand the "will of the people?" Even if your candidate doesn't win, your vote says something. And if your candidate does win, but with a smaller share of the vote than if his opponent's voters had just stayed home or voted against their interest because their "betters" told them to, well, then that candidate has an opportunity to learn something about what he will need to do, and to whom he must appeal, to win more broadly in the general election -- and, more important, to build and sustain real, effective, broadly democratic support once in office.

Obama supporter's appear to be signing onto the Rovian notion of democracy -- just get 50.1 and then tell the other 49.9 to go to hell, or, just pretend they don't exist.

That's worked so well for the nation over the last 8 years, hasn't it?

Posted by esmense | March 23, 2008 2:03 PM

"The Clintons can no longer speak without being accused of racism or discrediting Obama.

One thing for sure - Obama is too thin skinned to be president."

There is plenty that the Clintons could say without being fairly accused by Obama. McCain has spent the last month doing nothing but make one misstep after another. The way to attack Obama is to put McCain in the crosshairs and make sure Obama gets hit by the splash fire.

As it is, Clinton has gone on record saying that a man who doesn't know whose side Iran is on in the Iraq war has passed the threshold to be commander in chief.

And as far as being thin skinned is concerned, I'm nuch more concerned about leaders who don't learn from their mistakes. The Clintons have been told repeatedly that praising McCain over Obama is a turn-off and that having their surrogates deride their opponents' "significance" is another one, and yet they're still at it.

Why?

Posted by Splitting Image | March 23, 2008 2:07 PM

Obama is thin skinned? I guess I'm the only one who read the story (was it NYT?) about how Clinton's advisers/staff don't tell her any bad news because she doesn't want to hear it.

Posted by ZednCu | March 23, 2008 2:16 PM

So if I read this correctly, if neither candidate goes to the convention with enough delegates, and the supers end up voting for Hillary, it will be a perversion of the democratic process and a back room deal, with unelected delgates subverting the will of the people. But if these same superdelegates step in and try to stop the process before all of the primaries have even concluded, it's "for the good of the party." Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

Posted by ChrisO | March 23, 2008 2:16 PM

No, she ran into a black liberal who was able to combine caucuses and the south. He's done nothing that makes him "better", I don't think.

Yeah, because it really doesn't take much to beat a Clinton with all their built-in advantages: money, name recognition, machinery already in place, former President proxy-campaigning for HRC.

All it takes is a liberal negro and some bullshit caucus rules, or something.

Posted by Face The Music | March 23, 2008 2:18 PM

James Robertson - Could you point to the exact quotes of Jeremiah Wright that make him a "racist maniac"? Also, you do realize that whatever quotes were put on TV were cherry-picked out of multiple years of sermons, right?

Posted by nbt | March 23, 2008 2:23 PM

Clingon's the one who used The Rev to woo superdelegates. That in itself, is race baiting. Add in Bill's chumminess with Rush and Fox (in case you didn't see it, btw - http://www.halturnershow.com/ About Sean Hannity and Me. . . . .On Wednesday, March 19, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party appeared as a guest on "Hannity & Colmes" to discuss the Obama / Reverend Wright controversy. During that appearance, Sean Hannity asked Shabazz if Barak Obama shouldn't be judged by his past affiliations with Reverend Wright, to which Shabazz replied by asking Sean Hannity "Should you be judged by your past association with Hal Turner, a neo-Nazi?"

This is why we're not talking about jobs and the economy or the war. Do you know NY's 5 year anniversary protest only got 2500 participants?

Posted by kravitz | March 23, 2008 2:31 PM

I'd simply put Yglesias's point on its head: given that voters in OH and, as it seems very likely, PA are going to vote for Hillary in impressive numbers despite their knowledge that it would in some real sense be better if Democrats could rally around the frontrunner, what does that say about just how entrenched is their opposition to Obama as the nominee? How likely is it that such voters will plunk down for Obama come November?

Posted by frankly0 | March 23, 2008 2:35 PM

pseudonymous in nc --

I don't care if every single hippie in Idaho and Utah shows up to vote in the general election, Obama isn't going to win the upper Mountain West -- anymore than McGovern did, despite the fact that he won just about every state West of the Mississippi in the primaries. This idea of "broadening the electorate" with the youth vote, Independent and moderate Republicans (while dismissing traditional Democratic constituencies) isn't a "new" kind of politics at all -- it's a repeat of an old political gambit that spectacularly failed.

It's true that parts of the Southwest are in play, and have been for several election cycles. But they are just as likely to go for either Democrat in November. As are the the Coastal Western states.

The real question for an Obama victory in November is this; will women show up in large enough numbers to offset the usual male gender gap?

If what seems to be the majority opinion of his online supporters that this important part of the Democratic constituency can be safely written off is held within the campaign itself, he's headed for trouble everywhere.

Posted by esmense | March 23, 2008 2:38 PM

The voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere still remaining should do just what I did when I voted in my primary--vote for who they want to be President. Period.

As an Edwards supporter, I am amazed by the Obama/Clinton war going on in the blogosphere right now. I have to say, however, it is primarily the Obama supporters that have become the super pain in the ass.

Everyday you see post after post in Kos, Americablog, Booman, etc. about how Hillary should quit now. Guess what? she won't, regardless of how many times you post such crap.

She has well over 1000 delegates, and NOBODY with over 1000 delegates has ever quit before the convention.

Suddenly Politico and Chris Matthews are the voice of reason. Please. If that's the case, I'll stay crazy, thank you. And I think following Tweety's lead brings on yet again another instance of 'The Tweety Factor', just like New Hampshire.

People don't like being told their vote doesn't count and they are dumb to vote for whom they want, so just cut that line of reasoning, thank you.

It's about time everybody stopped getting the vapors and hitting the fainting couch over every little thing anybody tangentially involved in any campaign say and concentrate on beating the GOP.
I don't care what Ferrarro or Wright said, and I really am getting tired of hearing it all rehashed ad nauseum everywhere.

Nuff said.

Posted by twit | March 23, 2008 2:49 PM

How likely is it that such voters will plunk down for Obama come November?

I don't really care who "such voters" vote for in November. Obama has won the right to lose just like every other white candidate in history. If he wins, GREAT. If you help him lose, we'll return the favor in 2012, 2016 and 2020.

Any way you slice it, sucks to be you.

Posted by Face The Music | March 23, 2008 2:52 PM

Twit,

If the situation was the reversed, in which HRC's ahead in delagates, number of states won, popular vote and fundraising, do you honestly think that the powers that be would allow Obama to still run?

Posted by Micheline | March 23, 2008 2:58 PM

If Obama had ever lost 12 contests in a row, the press would be giving him the Huckabee treatment. Is there any doubt about that?

Posted by Monster | March 23, 2008 3:00 PM

All it takes is a liberal negro and some bullshit caucus rules, or something.

I believe they prefer to be called African Americans. But yes, pretty much. The other assist is proportional delegate assignment.

This is not to say Obama isn't a likeable guy,but it sure wasn't superior campaigning skills that got him here. It was his race and the support that won him in the southern states.

given that voters in OH and, as it seems very likely, PA are going to vote for Hillary in impressive numbers despite their knowledge that it would in some real sense be better if Democrats could rally around the frontrunner, what does that say about just how entrenched is their opposition to Obama as the nominee?

Add in West Virginia, Kentucky, and probably Indiana--as well as around 80% of the white voters in North Carolina. That was pretty much my point as well.

Yglesias is so deep in the Koolaid he really deludes himself that the people would rally around Obama, and wonders why the Democratic leadership doesn't explain things fully (because of course, Clinton supporters are uneducated and stupid, in Yglesias's bizarro world) so that they get on the bus and vote for Obama.

In fact, the superdelegates,having a few more braincells than Yglesias, know full well what's going on, and that's why they are silent. They are afraid to give the nomination to Clnton, who they dislike, because of the African American reation. But they know full well what happens to the Democrats when they ignore or disdain their white voters.

I don't know what they'll do,but certainly they aren't jackwitted enough to think that white and Hispanic Democrats will start voting for Obama just because the party leadership tells them its' better for the country. Quite the contray,in fact.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 3:06 PM

The powers that be are going to do what they are going to do after the votes are in, that's the way it works.

If you think they are going to run to Hillary, you are crazy--they are looking for a way not to.

The Clintons have NEVER been the favorite of The Village--they've been regarded as outsiders.
You can tell the media and most of the establishment pols (Kennedy, Dodd, Pelosi, etc,) are dying to do them in.

My bet is they'll go Obama--but that's their business and that's the rules.

We can work to change the rules next time but constant moaning about the process isn't going to
convince the superdelegates. All the candidates should have been aware of the rules before they went in.

If Puerto Rico's primary was MEANT to be meainingless, then why schedule it at all? Somebody must have thought there was a possiblity of a contest going until June.

Posted by twit | March 23, 2008 3:08 PM

It should be obvious, just looking at the crossfire on this blog between the supporters of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama that neither can win against Senator McCain in November. It's time for the adults, if any, in the Democratic Party and the superdelegates to step forward and tell this unpleasant truth to the two candidates. They can best do this by announcing that they will not support either candidate but will support Al Gore, the only Democrat who can win in November. It's now time for the start of a draft Gore move to save the party from an ignominious defeat in November.

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 3:13 PM

I believe they prefer to be called African Americans. But yes, pretty much. The other assist is proportional delegate assignment.

This is not to say Obama isn't a likeable guy,but it sure wasn't superior campaigning skills that got him here. It was his race and the support that won him in the southern states.

Yeah, because race won it all for Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun. Is there anything you are ever right about? Like Petey, you are a one-person-wrecking-machine of facts.

At any rate, as you are successful in demeaning Obama's accomplishments, you further undermine HRC's political bonafides because, after all, she couldn't beat a likable negro man with all her structural advantages in running for Bill Clinton's third term.

Posted by Face The Music | March 23, 2008 3:23 PM

All of you trolls still beating this dead horse "Wright is a radical" meme need to get a clue - more and more people are waking up to the fact that the snippets they saw over and over again on CNN and Faux News were taken seriously out of context, and in fact are spreading falsehood. Go to http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/ for just one example. We're on to you now - time to go back to whatever rock you crawled out from under and cook up some more lies.

Posted by Stephen1947 | March 23, 2008 3:31 PM

It's amusing that so many supposed liberal bloggers are so eager to stop the voters from voting, and to disenfranchise those who already have. If your candidate is so inevitable, then why is he so afraid of the rest of us? If he can't be beat, then why all the screeds demanding that Hillary throw in the towel? No one demanded that Huckabee quit, even though he was much more of a longshot than Hillary is. I live in Oregon and haven't voted yet. And I wouldn't take kindly to those of you living in a world of chips and silicon and not the real world telling me that my vote doesn't matter. So SFTU and let the voters vote. If your guy is so good, he'll prevail. And another bonus is that he'll actually be vetted. The republicans won't be so kind to him as Hillary has been.

Posted by CognitiveDissonance | March 23, 2008 3:34 PM

It was his race and the support that won him in the southern states.

I'm wondering why Hillary's or John Edward's race didn't win for them in northern and western states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Vermont, Maine and Washington. Please let me know why, Cal?

The Ferraro Hypothesis was bullshit when she said it, and it remains bullshit today.

Posted by Pug | March 23, 2008 3:36 PM

Matthew,

Do you really think voters make this kind of political calculus in making their decision about who to vote for? Activists and party insiders may think like this, but no amount of informing the voters of the math will change the way they vote because most voters don't give a crap about that ... crap.

I wish Clinton would drop out, but I find it insulting for people to suggest that Democratic voters should just ignore their personal feelings about who would be the better nominee and instead give into the math.

I actually think it is this kind of calculus on the part of Obama supporters that is the main reason Obama has NOT closed the deal on the nomination. Voters don't want to hear that their concerns should be secondary to the concerns of The Party. And anyone who makes that argument to them is going to get burned.

Posted by Chris Andersen | March 23, 2008 3:41 PM

I'll say one thing for the Clinton dead-enders: they are right that it shouldn't be on the electorate of Pennsylvania to force Clinton out of the race. It isn't their fault that Clinton is unable to lose graciously, it isn't their fault that they happen to live in a state that favors Clinton, and it isn't their fault that the media has largely let Clinton and her supporters get away with claiming that the only states that count are the ones which favor her.

Indeed, as I suggested above, it is grossly unfair of both party leaders and people in the media to keep asking the electorate in Clinton's hand-picked states to do their job for them by handing Clinton a surprise loss. Still, in the end there is only one person responsible for Clinton staying in the race past the point where she has no reasonable chance to win, and only one person responsible for her strategy of using Republican attack lines on the eventual nominee, and that person of course is Clinton herself.

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 3:43 PM

Stephen1947, thank you for posting that link, but some of the comments are terrifying. It's like people are trying to make this ALL about race. I think eventually it'll divide along party lines. Republicans, as they often do, will turn towards hatred.

Posted by T-Pain | March 23, 2008 4:00 PM

It's kind of funny reading all these Clinton supporters complaining about media coronations and inevitable candidates. I'm sure they scrupulously made all the same comments back in 2007 when Clinton was the candidate of media inevitability. Cognitive dissonance indeed.

That said, I agree that it's insulting and, if you're an Obama supporter, counterproductive to insist that voters do the Democratic party's job for it--or do anything other than vote for their preferred candidate. I think Bill Richardson struck the right note in his endorsement, not calling for Clinton to drop out but calling for her to stop the negative campaigning that's hurting both candidates' chances in the general election. That's a call for party unity (and a signal to other party leaders) that doesn't presume to boss around voters in states that haven't had their primaries yet. I can see that kind of message achieving the desired result a lot more easily than the finger-wagging tone of this post.

Posted by Marc | March 23, 2008 4:10 PM

Obama wins two kinds of states: states with a very large number of African-Americans (especially in the Democratic primaries) and ones with very few. (Even in the latter kind, Obama wins primaries less decisively than he does caucuses--Washington state is a striking example.) The problem is that it's the in-between kind--Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc.--that are most likely to be decisive in the general elecion.

I think it's pretty plain that *if* you see the key to victory as winning the Kerry states plus narrow 2000 and 2004 Bush states like Ohio, Hillary is the better candidate. (She could even win a couple of states that went decisively for her husband in 1992 and 1996 but haven't come close to going Democratic since--Arkansas and West Virginia. Indeed, if she wins Ohio and Arkansas--where polls show her with a big lead over McCain--she could even lose one of Kerry's narrower states, like Wisconsin, and still win.)

The Obama scenario in effect demands that we throw out all past red state/blue state patterns and count on a massive influx of previously Republican voters (and new voters) to convert formerly red states (not just purple states that went narrowly for Bush) to blue. This, we are told, will make up for the loss of previously Democratic voters (working class whites and Latinos, especially women) which I think almost everyone acknowledges Obama wil suffer to *some* extent. I thought this scenario was dubious before the Wright afair and think it less likely than ever now. It might have worked if the GOP had nominated Romney, but they didn't...

Most supedelegates want their party to win. If Hillary wins every forthcoming primary--and even in North Carolina polls show she is close--I do not think they will be oblivious to Obama's weaknesses. So the massive shift of superdelegates to Hillary which we are told is "unrealistic" is IMO by no means impossible. Furthermore, it is not impossible that she will actually lead in the primary vote then, *if* you count Florida. Whether you should is controversial, of course, but this would at least give wary superdelegates an excuse to come down on her side. (By the way, it is, in my opinion, perfectly legitimate for superdelegates to pay more attention to the results from the later primaries than to the earlier ones. The voters in the later primaries have had the benefit of more information about events like the Wright controversy.)

Posted by David T | March 23, 2008 4:10 PM

Oh, and for the "little old white ladies won't vote for Obama" people: The one group that has voted Democratic more consistently than old white ladies is African-Americans. And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't polls usually show that they're far more likely to stay home than the former group if their candidate is taken away? ESPECIALLY if it's because superdelegates felt the Wright business made him "unelectable."

Posted by Monster | March 23, 2008 4:19 PM

Yeah, because race won it all for Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun.

No, the relevant comparison to Obama is Jesse Jackson, who also won Alabama, Louisiana, Missippi, Virginia, and Georgia, as well as some caucuses. Sound familiar?

Jackson ran much the same race, with the difference being that he had more history and was, in Shelby Steele's dichotomy, a challenger rather than a bargainer. So he didn't have as much of the liberal establishment at his disposal. Besides, in 1988, the Democratic history of losing with liberal candidates was much fresher. This time, liberals have been deluding themselves for some time that their prospects have improved.

Sharpton and Braun were not running campaigns, but shakedown operations for more serious candidates looking for a quick route to black support.

I'm wondering why Hillary's or John Edward's race didn't win for them in northern and western states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Vermont, Maine and Washington.

Wisconsin: Obama lost white Democrats. Independents/Republicans were 1 in 3 and contributed his entire margin of victory.

Minnesota, Iowa, Maine, Washington: Caucuses. Did you miss that part of my post, or are you not terribly clear on what the word means? Washington offers the best example of why the caucuses are a joke--in a totally meaningless primary 2 weeks later, Obama's margin of victory was cut to about 4 points. And that was with low turnout.

Vermont: White liberals, making it indistinguishable from a caucus (ditto for Utah).

Missouri: He barely won it, just clearing the hurdle with the combination of white independents/Republicans and a substantial black vote. Clinton won white Democrats by over twenty points (62-39).

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 4:23 PM

Mystery solved! Cal is Mark Penn.

Posted by Marc | March 23, 2008 4:25 PM

Cal @ 3:06 said

"This is not to say Obama isn't a likeable guy,but it sure wasn't superior campaigning skills that got him here. It was his race and the support that won him in the southern states."

"... [W]asn't superior campaigning skills ..." Are you kidding? Obama essentially began February of 2007 with little more than some positive buzz and (limited) name recognition from an address at the 2004 convention and built a campaign that has consistently out-performed a Clinton campaign that seemed unbeatable at the time.

He is now approaching 2 million donors and has about $31 million on hand for the primary (with only about $600K in debt). Clinton has about $11 million on hand (with about $8 million in debt). He's won twice as many states, leads in pledged delegates and the popular vote, and is picking up superdelegates while Clinton is, at best, stalled on that front.

He won't have the delegates going into the convention and will need to pick up more supers. He needs to address some of the legitimate questions being raised (while dodging the scurrilous bullshit attacks). But to suggest that he's not a serious or capable campaigner is the height of obliviousness.

Lay off the crackpipe. That stuff will end you.

Posted by SocialScientist | March 23, 2008 4:31 PM

David T,

And what happens if Clinton loses Wisconsin AND Minnesota?

Cal,

What percentage of the total general electorate do white non-liberal Democrats make up?

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 4:45 PM

Personally, I don't need "credible party leaders" to explain anything to me. In fact, I am qualified to explain something to them.

I believe B Obama is a charlatan. And I believe him to deeply flawed. I also believe his speech on race was a condescending, insecure and finger wagging accusation to all Americans.

I am sorry that Barack Obama could not "find" himself as he states in the Audacity of Hope. I know having a father who abandoned him and a mother who
was incapable of care must have hurt him deeply. It is a story many, of both white and black Americans, not just Barack Obama.

In addition, race is an issue we all need too understand from our our own prospective. No one is
left off the hook on this issue. However, to have a candidate for President who is playing out his or issues on the national stage lecture all of about race is unacceptable.

Posted by Melissa Stewart | March 23, 2008 5:00 PM

Wait, you, someone who has never met Senator Obama, are qualified to "explain" to superdelegates, people who have met him and worked with him extensively, that he is a charlatan?

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 23, 2008 5:04 PM

Melissa,

Absolutely--it is obviously not the role of national public leaders to comment on social issues of national importance. Instead, we should leave that task where it belongs, with daytime talk show hosts.

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 5:06 PM

DTM,

I guess I'd like to hear from you or any Obama supporter how it is that he's supposed to win the general if he can't win a single of the 4 major swing states, PA, OH, MI, or FL? It of course isn't helpful that in MI and FL he had a hand -- which even his supporters now boast of, quite incredibly -- in sabotaging the possibilities of having their voice heard in the primary process.

You can despise those Reagan Democrats, but isn't it sad how necessary they are to winning the election in November? Perhaps Obama supporters should move to a morally superior Alternative Reality where their man can triumph over the forces of ignorance and darkness.

Posted by frankly0 | March 23, 2008 5:09 PM

But to suggest that he's not a serious or capable campaigner is the height of obliviousness.

I didn't say he wasn't serious or capable. I said that these qualities didn't give him the wins he needed. If he'd been serious, capable, attractive, and anti-war, with a good campaign staff, he would have done well in the caucuses. None of those qualities got him his southern states or Missouri.

>What percentage of the total general electorate do white non-liberal Democrats make up?

Start by assuming 75% of the electorate is white (it was 77% in 2004). Then figure a third of them are Democrats, and close to 75% of white Democrats are not liberal. About 20%?

Of course, the general electorate isn't as important as the states they are in.

Then there are independents. Up to now, I've been focusing on Democrats, but the problem with independents are that they come in all shapes and sizes. I'd assume that Clinton has been winning the moderate independents, while Obama's been winning the liberal ones. I didn't use to think that, but a vastly different independent profile per each state is the only thing that makes sense of the back and forth you see among Clinton and Obama. While much has been made of Obama's success among independents and Republicans, Clinton has won them almost as often--Obama has 55% to her 45.

So her independents might be more at risk for going to McCain than his are depending on what type each of them have been winning. I'm not predicting anything, just pointing out another factor that could be relevant. And of course, the opposite could be true, but that's been pointed out before.

Kerry only won 40% of whites in 2004. It don't see how Obama does anything near that well.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 5:31 PM

The sorry reality of Obama at this stage is that the Wright controversy has essentially transformed his appeal from a potentially centrist candidate into an extreme left wing candidate. I don't see either Republicans or Independents favoring him in real numbers from here on out. The people who are really satisfied by his speech as an explanation are only the left wing segments of the Party that always backed him.

This will become obvious in the general, if he gets to that point.

Posted by frankly0 | March 23, 2008 5:35 PM

frankly0,

"Reagan Democrats" are no longer Democrats: they are Republicans and independents, and every indication is that Obama would end up doing much better among Republicans and independents than Clinton in crucial swing states. The people Hillary is winning in the primaries are "Bill Clinton Democrats", not "Reagan Democrats".

Anyway, I think Obama would win at least PA, OH, and MI. In fact, I think he would be considerably stronger than Clinton in Michigan (just as he would be stronger in Wisconsin and Minnesota), and about equal in Ohio. In PA I think she would be marginally stronger, but he should still win if the Clintons campaign for him in Western PA. Neither of them are likely to beat McCain in Florida.

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 5:36 PM

Actually, Cal's analysis---focusing exclusively on the white vote---may be somewhat too favorable towards Obama's chances.

The problem is that Obama has generally done much worse among Hispanics and Asians than he has among white Democrats. And Hispanics and Asians are both "swing" constituencies in November, for whom McCain might have considerable appeal.

So Obama's strategic difficulty isn't that the November electorate will be about 75% white, but rather that it will be about 90% non-black, which is actually a pretty sizable difference.

If he were even doing just so-so among Hispanics and Asians, he would be a tremendously stronger November candidate, and anyway would have already won the primaries in a landslide and been declared the nominee months ago.

Posted by RKU | March 23, 2008 5:43 PM

Cal,

I think your math is off (I'd say more like 12%: 40% total Democrats, of those about half non-liberal Democrats, of those about 60% white non-liberal Democrats), but whether it is 12% or 20%, it is already completely insufficient to win the general election. Hence, the superdelegates simply could not justify using only that group to determine electability. And they clear aren't.

Incidentally, Obama could do better than Kerry among white voters by doing better among white Republicans and independents. You keep forgetting your "analysis" of the "white vote" requires you to throw out non-Democrats.

Finally, the "back and forth" among Clinton and Obama when it comes to white voters is entirely explainable by regionalism (aka, look at a map). She does best among white voters in the Northeast Corridor, Appalachians, and the South. He does best among white voters more or less everywhere else. Mystery solved.

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 5:51 PM

RKU,

What is your evidence for the proposition that McCain would have more appeal than Obama among Hispanic and Asian voters?

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 5:54 PM

RKU,

Oh, and what are Clinton's chances if she gets under 20% of the African-American vote in the general election?

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 6:18 PM

DTM: "And what happens if Clinton loses Wisconsin AND Minnesota?"

She can still win by carrying Ohio, Arkansas, Iowa, and New Mexico. Remember that Iowa and New Mexico went for Gore in 2000 and only barely went for Bush in 2004 when 9/11 was much closer and the economy much better than it is today...

I don't think she will lose Minnesota, though. The latest SurveyUSA shows her three points ahead of McCain there--and this after McCain has gotten a free pass for weeks while the Demcorats have been tearing each other apart! http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=15dcd0cc-83df-4097-911b-3fd75fcb8894&q=45892 And she has a reasonable chance of carrying some other states like West Virginia. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/wv/west_virginia_mccain_vs_clinton-631.html

One other point: There is indeed a danger that some blacks (and a few progressive whites) will stay at home (or vote for a third party candidate) if Clinton is nominated (though I think that most who are threatening to do so now will have second thoughts in November). But very few of them will actually vote for McCain. By contrast, many of the working-class white and Latino voters who support Clinton might actually vote for McCain in November if Obama is nominated--after all, many of them did vote for Republicans in 1980-88. Someone who can plausibly threaten to vote for the opposition candidate is *twice* as dangerous as someone who can merely threaten to stay at home. When you lose the latter, you lose one vote. When you lose the former, you lose one vote *and McCain gains one.*

Posted by David T | March 23, 2008 6:20 PM

Re RKU, DTM, and David T

The short answer is that neither Senator Clinton or Senator Obama can win. Draft Gore, draft Gore, draft Gore.

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 6:27 PM

"If we don't have a nominee till it's two months and change before the general election, we are absolutely toast."

If Obama is the nominee out of that convention, we're toast, anyway.

Posted by Shainzona | March 23, 2008 6:29 PM

I'm certainly not arguing that McCain would have *more* appeal among Hispanics and Asians than Obama, i.e. that he'd win a majority. Just that he'd have a pretty good shot of "tightening the margins" considerably compared to the typical D/R presidential race.

My point is that Obama seems to have extremely low appeal to Hispanics and Asians, which is hardly disputable since he's been losing them to Hillary by something like a 40 point margin.

And McCain's perceived status as a "moderate" and his record as a "war hero" and "maverick" would go over very well with these two groups, which tend to cluster more towards the moderate/independent side of the political spectrum. Also, Rev. Wright's "unpatriotic" sound-clips---which will certainly be carpet-bombed on TV by 527 groups---won't help in this regard.

Another problem for Obama is that although "economic populism" would be extremely attractive to Latinos---especially in contrast to Republican policies---he's positioned himself very far from this stance during the primary campaigns, and his chief economic advisers are (apparently) ultra-anti-populists.

Again, I'm not arguing that Obama would necessarily *lose* the Latino/Asian vote---which is normally pretty Democratic---just that he'd probably do much, much worse than (say) Hillary in this campaign cycle, and perhaps even worse than Kerry in 2004.

Posted by RKU | March 23, 2008 6:32 PM

"My point is that Obama seems to have extremely low appeal to Hispanics and Asians"

First, how many Asians vote? Secondly, the Hispanic issue is an information issue, and his numbers have gone up with time and exposure. And with Bill Richardson campaigning for him- shit, might even be on the ticket- I'm not worried.

And in the face of a HUGE recession, I am not worried about the general for either candidate. Remember, Giuliani was the GOP's guy, until people found out more about him.

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 23, 2008 6:37 PM

David T,

But if she is losing Wisconsin and Minnesota, she is probably losing Iowa too (and how do you think the people of Iowa feel about Clinton pledging to them that she would support the DNC's rulings on the unauthorized early primaries, and then reversing herself once the authorized early states were done voting?).

By the way, McCain and the GOP media machine have largely been giving Clinton a free pass lately while hammering Obama, which you might want to factor into your analysis. Finally, as I reminded another poster, the "Reagan Democrats" are now independents and Republicans, and Obama is doing better among those groups. For that matter, in regions such as the Midwest, upper New England, and West, he is doing better among white working class Democrats. Clinton has only done better among white working class Democrats in certain other regions.

RKU,

OK, what is your evidence for the proposition that McCain would do better than a typical Republican among Hispanics and Asians if he ran against Obama? The fact Clinton has done well in the primaries among these groups is not evidence on this point, because you cannot assume McCain would duplicate her appeal, and of course the Democratic primaries say nothing about Hispanic and Asian voters not voting in the Democratic primaries.

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 7:01 PM

By the way, I've had my fun, so I will just point out the obvious once again:

Neither Clinton nor Obama can win the general election without getting most of the current supporters of the other person to vote for them in the general (not all, but most). The arguments of people like Cal and RKU basically just implicitly assume Clinton will succeed in doing this with Obama' supporters, and Obama will fail to do this with Clinton's supporters, leaving Obama magically in a worse position in the general election even though he currently has more supporters than Clinton in the primaries.

Of course, that is a nonsensical assumption, and contradicted by everything we know about political dynamics in this country. But nonsensical assumptions are what you need at this point to make a case for Clinton.

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 7:10 PM

I think the most hilarious thing about threads like these is how people can predict the voting tendencies of whites, blacks, Asians, and striped turtles without bothering to ask a question about their opinions on the war, or whether they'll be affected by the economy tanking later in the year.

You all realize that the surge is going to end in a few months and the overall lack of political progress in Iraq will become apparent? And that the subprime mess is getting worse?

And McCain has nothing to say about either.

It seems that for some people, none of this will really matter in November. People will debate the issues, think carefully about each candidate's position, then decide in the end "I ain't gonna vote for the black guy."

Not this time.

Posted by Splitting Image | March 23, 2008 7:37 PM

But there are few indications that they understand the real structure of the race

Why do so many comments from MY and other "high-information" Obama partisans (hiOps) devolve to the notion that things would be much better if ignorant Clinton supporters would just let the hiOps make their choices for them? Is this some yuppie version of noblesse oblige?

Posted by Gene | March 23, 2008 7:40 PM

First, how many Asians vote? Secondly, the Hispanic issue is an information issue, and his numbers have gone up with time and exposure.

(1) Well, the Asian vote certainly isn't huge, but I'd guess the Asian+Latino vote is about 1.5 times the black vote, though if Obama generates a truly unprecedented black turnout this might shrink.

(2) I don't see any real signs that Obama's Hispanic appeal has gone up much with additional time and "information". He lost the Hispanic vote to Hillary in California by almost 40 points, and then much later in Texas again lost it by almost 40 points once again. And the TX loss came despite Hillary's being then perceived as doomed, Obama's having picked up lots of local Latino endorsements, and his having massively outspent her in advertising.

I also tend to doubt that Richardson has any great appeal among Latinos, which is one of the many reasons his own campaign went absolutely nowhere.

Posted by RKU | March 23, 2008 7:41 PM

RKU--I've made the same points about Hispanics and Asians several times.

Asians are about 7% of California voters, and at this time, the Dems would be smart to assume they go 80% for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Then they can be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't happen.

Neither Clinton nor Obama can win the general election without getting most of the current supporters of the other person to vote for them in the general (not all, but most).

As has been pointed out, Obama's supporters are likely to stay home if they get angry. Clinton's supporters are more likely to support McCain. All polls thus far have shown Clinton's supporters more likely to vote for McCain than Obama's are.

even though he currently has more supporters than Clinton in the primaries.

He doesn't have more support from Democrats. And those are the only people who can be safely assumed to vote for a Democratic candidate. So yes, it's quite possible that Obama will fail to keep around 20% of his existing supporters (independents/republicans) right out of the gate. For Clinton, that number is considerably smaller.

I also suspect blacks won't be as angry as everyone (including me) assumes. If Obama loses the next group of primaries and the Dems convince him to step down, for example, I think Clinton will maintain a good percentage of blacks. Liberals, maybe not, but then liberals don't matter from an electoral perspective.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 7:43 PM

How about superdelegates do the strategic-voting, and actual Dem primary voters do the voting for the candidate they actually prefer? It's distasteful, or something worse, to tell people to vote strategically rather than for the candidate they prefer, when we're still in the primaries.

Posted by Rich | March 23, 2008 7:45 PM

I guess I'd like to hear from you or any Obama supporter how it is that he's supposed to win the general if he can't

You've heard from this Obama supporter that it doesn't matter how he is supposed to win the general. With the most delegates, he's won the right to lose it, just like every other white candidate.

Now that you've been answered, go concern troll somewhere else.

Posted by Face The Music | March 23, 2008 8:49 PM

The math is simply in a general election.

If McCain vs Hillary, McCain wins independents, Republicans show up in record numbers to defeat the evil Hillary, and many of Obama's supporters, including the young people, first time voters, and the African American community, either stay home or go to McCain. Hillary will never beat McCain as her negatives are sky high and now she has lost the African American vote. It would be seen as a movement to defeat Hillary.

If McCain vs Obama, then Obama wins the independents, Democrats are more energized, Obama wins over some Republicans, other Republicans are less energized about McCain and don't care as much about stopping Obama, and Obama gets a record turnout of African Americans, young voters, first time voters, etc. It would be seen as a movement to elect Obama.

Most of Hillary's support is institutional old-school political machinery, and that will go to whomever the nominee is. In fact, many of Hillary's supporters would love to support Obama and would find it more uplifting and a more winning proposition.

Posted by cm | March 23, 2008 9:32 PM

All of this nightmare wouldn't be happening if Obama and Hillary both had realized they were the wrong candidate to easily win a general election.
Both should have supported John Edwards and then campaigned against each other for the VP spot.
Had that happened, I guarantee you Edwards would be WAAY ahead of McCain. The tragic truth is that both Obama and Hillary are very flawed as candidates in a general election, and its why John Edwards...and Al Gore--still haven't endorsed.

Posted by laurel | March 24, 2008 12:38 AM

people won't understand the dynamic unless it's explained to them by credible party leaders.

This is tough to pull off. They're "taking a side" if they pull anything like Bill Richardson did, who was pretty pragmatic himself, much or less anyone as tenacious and enthusiastic as Ed Rendell is running around to the talk shows.

If they release a statement explaining how they "just wanna get this thing over with", or something to that extent, and sign all their names at the bottom and put Obama over top, it will be in the public domain so as to get the information out to the undecided Dems and fence-sitting Hillary supporters. However, it will also be out there for the GOP talking heads to point at and say "look, they don't really like him, they just wanna stop the bleeding!" Of course, that's the case with McCain, but their talking heads shout louder.

Posted by socctty | March 24, 2008 2:40 AM

Re "people won't understand the dynamic unless it's explained to them by credible party leaders."
--------------
Ha ha ha ha.

You can tell that Matthew's never worked in a campaign.

I was called by the Obama campaign the other day and asked to help. Now that i'm getting over a bout of flu, I intend to mosey down to their HQ and do some phone banking.

Of course, I won't be explaining insider baseball to my fellow PA voters. I'll simply explain how Hillary will be sending their sons to die in Iran 6 weeks after the inaugural.

Posted by Don Williams | March 29, 2008 11:02 PM

I still remember the Howard Dean campaign -- and those gay activists writing letters to those conservative church-goers in Iowa arguing that people should vote for Howard because he was in favor of gay marriage.

Sigh.

Poor Joe Trippi never knew what hit him.

Posted by Don Williams | March 29, 2008 11:07 PM

They give you phone scripts, of course.

But to the cadre, those aren't rules -- more like guidelines.

Posted by Don Williams | March 29, 2008 11:10 PM