In all the post-Pennsylvania post mortems there have been a lot of reasons given (and a ungodly amount of spin) as to why Hillary Clinton won and why Barack Obama can't close the deal.

Greg Haas, a local political consultant who worked for President Clinton's campaign but is now supporting Obama, shared his thoughts in a radio discussion. Haas says Obama has had problems winning over White males in Ohio and Pennsylvania. As the New York Times suggested, Clinton's support among older and less-educated, working class Whites have been a formidable force that has thus far rebuffed Obama in the primary and may do so again in the fall to the detriment of the Democrats in the general election.

Obama has been the overwhelming choice of newer, younger voters, those with college degrees and Black voters, but as a coalition, is that enough to best Senator Clinton in the spring or Senator McCain in the fall?

Haas says short-term memory is a common malady in long campaigns like this and many have forgotten Obama did well with working class White men in Wisconsin. In late primary states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, neither campaign had the advantage of a established political organization on the ground, but Clinton benefited immensely from the active support of Governors Ted Strickland and Ed Rendell. Here in Ohio, while Obama concentrated (and won) the urban cities such as Columbus, Cleveland and Dayton, the Clinton campaign put a lot of effort into hitting smaller towns especially in conservative Southern Ohio. They dispatched Bill Clinton to many of the same places Strickland went when he successfully made his run for the governor's office.

Polls can't gauge the impact of a superior political machine and tactics. There has been much discussion that in the rough-and-tumble of the primaries Clinton may be doing Obama a favor by toughening him up for what is certain to be a far rougher general election if he is the Democratic nominee. However, she may have revealed a fundamental flaw in Obama in his difficulty in wooing older and working class Whites, a demographic that seems tailor made for McCain to make his pitch to.

Strickland and Rendell are solid Democrats and any hard feelings between them and Obama will be papered over in a general election campaign and they will certainly try to push their state into the Democratic "blue" instead of the Republican "red," but with Obama at the top of the ticket will that create an opening for McCain?

Despite his weakness with a key part of the Democratic base, Haas says much of that can be chalked up to familiarity. People feel they know Hillary Clinton (and McCain). They have both been on the national scene for a long time and for better or worse, their reputation precedes them. For Obama, this is his first time on a stage this big and as the new kid of the block while he's brought freshness and excitement to the show, he's also had his share of gaffes and missteps. The Jeremiah Wright controversy and the "bitter" statement have arguably been blown out of proportion, but have had the effect of knocking Obama back on his heels, on the defensive and off-message. Time that could be better spent introducing himself, setting the agenda and beating Clinton has instead been squandered on trivialities that have become tsunamis.

Haas says the wheels have not come off the Obama Express . It's stalled, to be sure and his inability to beat Clinton in the bigger states is a trouble spot, but he still has the numbers and the momentum favoring him holding off Clinton's challenge. Unlike Clinton and McCain, they are who they are at this point in time. Their next major decision is who they choose as a vice-presidential running mate, but even if Clinton were to pick Obama as part of a unlikely "unity" ticket and McCain tabbed a eager beaver like Mitt Romney that would largely pacify conservatives, that would not redefine them. What you see is what you get with Clinton and McCain.

Obama's choice of vice-president could help redefine him, Haas says. Someone like Senator Joe Biden or General Wesley Clark would add immensely to his candidacy. I've come around to Wertz's point of view that while Bill Richardson has all the qualifications to be a perfect running mate, the combination of a African-American and Hispanic-American is too much diversity for Middle America to accept at the same time.

The New York Times article says the uncomfortable truth that a segment of White voters will not vote for a Black candidate is another obstacle Obama has run smack into. But that was always the 500-lb gorilla in the room everyone wanted to ignore. For some people it's always going to be 1950 and the proper place for Blacks is the back of the bus. Some may suggest racism has wilted away to a point that only the backward and uneducated still practice it, but the truth is there is still a formidable amount of resistance in the minds of more than a few Whites to the notion of minorities in positions of leadership.

As the campaign goes (drags? limps?) on, Democratic party insiders are wringing their hands and fretting how Clinton and Obama are carving bloody chunks out of each other. The pundits are decrying the nastiness and have grown impatient with Hillary's refusal to just die and go away and saying the glitter has faded from Barack's halo. Looks like the Democrats are going to blow it again and hand The White House back to the Republicans (again).

Relax. Even though it doesn't seem like it this will come to an end then the Democrats will put on some forced smiles and go after John McCain and see how he likes it under the heat lamps. The Clinton campaign says it got a bounce of over $10 million dollars off internet fund raising following the Pennsylvania victory and Obama still is sitting on a war chest over over $40 million. McCain would carve off parts of his body for that kind of cash.

Fatigue is sort of setting in for even this political junkie as by now I feel like I've seen and heard everything I need to hear about Obama and Clinton at least three times too often.

The long and slow slog still has a ways to go but we are closer to the end game than before. It just doesn't feel like it.

I don't know why Keith Olberman says the ad is blatantly racist. If Obama's pastor had been a white man and said the same thing, wouldn't there still be outrage? I like Keith Olberman, but I think he's really off base with this one.

If Senator McCain can't get the North Carolina GOP to acquiesce to his wishes, how does it bode for his leadership of the country?

However, I do not think it fair to judge Senator Obama based on this guy who got carried away at the pulpit, any more than I think Senator McCain should be judged necessarily for being backed by a rabidly anti-Catholic Protestant evangelist except that in the latter instance Hagee was very obviously, publicly endorsing McCain without making any apology for his calling the Roman Catholic Church the "Great Whore of Revelation".

Now, back to the question about elitism. If ever, ever there was blatant elitism in a politician, we need only look at the White House's current occupant with his arrogance and condescension evident in how he deals with the Congress and, in some cases, the Supreme Court when it disagrees with him (not to mention the American people and their opinion polls). The difference being that while he is arrogant because of a lifetime of entitlement and social contacts, he lacks the requisite intellectual quality that conservatives like to identify with elitism in Barack Obama.

My longshot candidate as McCain's choice for VP, Michael Steele, had an interesting observation on this the other night on FOX News' Pennsylvania coverage. Brit Hume asked him point blank about what the race factor was in his experience running for office in Maryland. Steele told him that among some of the demographic groups identified in NT's post it was about a 20% disadvantage for a black candidate. That's a pretty steep hill to climb.


Aquilla

To be accurate, it was an anti-Perdue/anti-Moore ad attacking their support for Obama. Either way, it's an under-handed and misleading ad and I'm glad McCain condemned it. Clinton should probably have done the same, even though it didn't emerge from within her party. I'm at least grateful that Keith Olberman has not (yet) intimated that the ad was produced by the Clinton campaign as a sort of black op. I haven't checked DailyKos, though. But I have a feeling it's more of a preview of coming attractions rather than an unfortunate example of isolated zealotry. And I have no doubt that John McCain will be doing a lot of righteous condemnations of such ads in the future - as he laughs up his sleeve.

Oh, wait - that had what to do with Obama's recent "slip"?


I'd like to commend nighttimer's most recent post. It's probably the most thoughtful (and accurate) analysis of the primary so far and the prospects ahead that I've seen here (my own included) - and most other places for that matter. I also agree with it close enough to 100%.

I will just add that the short-term memory syndrome mentioned by Greg Haas has also led us to forget that many of the younger voters, those with college degrees, and black voters were in Clinton's camp six months ago. Clinton has not gained any of Obama's early constituents (whom I would class as idealists and some "identity voters" to the extent that he had any initial "core" of support), but Obama has thrived by drawing former and potential Clinton supporters. I'm not criticizing the candidate or his campaign here in the least, just making an observation: had Obama not been in the running, Clinton would possibly still be "inevitable". At this point in the process, though, it would be hard for her to reclaim many of those constituents - perhaps harder than Obama picking up some of the older and working class vote (though it's less likely that they'd cross over to McCain and might just sit the election out, were Clinton the candidate).

I would agree, though, that for many voters in Pennsylvania and beyond, familiarity and reputation had a lot to do with people making their choice. As Obama is such a relative unknown, he is largely being created by the immediate coverage (and spin) of his campaign - there's no record or history available for comparison in the public mind. That's why the "associations" and "distractions" are looming so large in this campaign. I'm not saying that's fair, just that it is a given. There could also be an extent to which being relatively unknown has worked to the candidate's advantage: he certainly comes with little known baggage and people can project a lot of their own beliefs onto him, especially if they're as nebulous as "wanting change". Indeed, it was that sort of projection that drew me to the candidate initially, with his speech at the 2004 convention.

While it could be argued that Clinton is something of a "spoiler" at this point, doing potential damage to her party by remaining in the race, it could also be argued that Obama was a "spoiler" early in the campaign - putting at risk not only the "inevitability" of Clinton's nomination, but of a Democratic win in November. Obama's early success in the primaries drove several worthier candidates from the race (and I mean worthier than both Clinton and Obama) - candidates who might also have challenged Clinton's "inevitability" without being as much of a gamble come the general election. Unless there's a genuinely brokered convention, though, where even Edwards could make a comeback, that's water under the bridge (and will inevitably sound as much like partisan bitterness as objective observation).

In any event, it's clear that Obama can win the nomination, especially if it's tacitly decided before the convention. It's less clear - to me, at least - that he can win the general election. Having a VP like Biden or Clark would certainly help. I wouldn't count on the war chest of either candidate, though. In the primaries (Democratic and Republican), one candidate often spent three or more times the amount of the others without having any noticeable impact on the outcome. Mitt Romney, anyone?

I'm hoping that the fatigue that seems to be setting in on everyone (or everyone who's been following the campaigns closely anyway) might give us some time to reflect on the candidates and actually examine their platforms, their abilities, and their fitness for the office. If that happened, I think McCain's chances would start dropping, perhaps considerably. But I'm not holding my breath.

This seems to be a fair assessment, but one filled with irony. John Kerry’s campaign, and perhaps Al Gore’s, collapsed partially because they had been around, had a paper trail from years in public office.


Republicans, who live in glass houses, shouldn’t cast stones, Amlord

I suppose I break the mold for older white males in supporting Obama. While we wallow in feces from the chicken coop, which is what this thread has become, we pay little attention to McCain’s endorsement by John Hage and McCain's acceptance of same.

The Columbia Journalism Review’s us a lot about McCain’s associations. Hagee is anti-gay, anti Israel, anti-Catholic, and who knows who this utter hate monger does like. My apology to anyone offended by my denouncing this "true" Christian.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccai...onnection_1.php

Now on to HillaryClinton. Why are we talking about Jeremiah Wright and “bitterness" while Clinton tells Keith Olbermann that she’s willing to nuke Iran.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24256056/

Nukes scare me a lot more than anything Jeremiah Wright could say. On the rare occasion people on have espoused such, they have been routinely dismissed as nut jobs. Why are we not paying attention to what Clinton told Olbermann?

BTW: If Clinton gets the nomination, I will vote for her, despite her playing the fear card as cleverly as has Bush for the past seven years plus. My vote, however, will not be a happy one.

What I am offended by are lies. Hagee is most certainly NOT anti-Israel and John McCain has denounced his views on catholics.....

From People for the American Way, one of your wacklib groups, BoF....



Last Sunday on This Week, John McCain stated that while condemning Hagee's remarks about the Catholic Church, he accepted Hagee's endorsement because of Hagee's suport for Israel.

Aquilla

[quote name='Aquilla' date='Apr 24 2008, 05:08 PM' post='243886']John McCain has denounced his views on catholics.....[/quotge][

McCain still accepts his support. You can't have it both ways.

Wait until the Democrats start hurling the rotten tomatoes at McCain.

It appears you already are, even if you have to make crap up.


Aquilla

I apparenly misspoke about Israel. Apparently, Hagee loves Israel, but not Jews. How do you get around his anti-Semitism, when he makes statements like the one below?


http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccai...onnection_1.php

Is Hagee saying that the Jews themselves were responsible for their own deaths in the Holocaust? It sure as hell sounds like it. Really, they brought six million deaths on themselve?


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...-endorseme.html

It sounds to me like McCain wants it both ways and, of course, he will accept any money this bigot sends his way.


BTW: You can throw up all the feigned angry faces you want on the Jumbotron, but there are always those of us who will be equally angry at the Swift Boat Veterans and those who brag about supporting them financially.

The Reverend Mr. Hagee is not anti-Israel because the Old Testament says they are God's chosen people. However, if you press Hagee on it, he believes that the Jews are not going to heaven when they die if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. Hagee is for Israel because he believes the Bible which says that "no weapon that is formed against [the Jews] will prosper," and neither will any nation that opposes God's chosen people. So call it enlightened self interest, if you will, that keeps Hagee from denouncing and persecuting Jews as has been done by some representatives of the Christian faith for centuries.

But let's look at this, since according to some people Barack Obama is worse than McCain for not refusing to have anything to do with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Wright baptized the Obama children. They have been friends, he and the Obama family, for years now. Does he preach "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Probably. Obama has shown loyalty to a man with whom he has had a friendship for years, and while he acknowledges that what Wright said was wrong ("Not God bless America, God damn America!"), he refuses to sever these ties with his friend. He didn't cut his losses with this guy because it was politically expedient. Good for him.

(It would have been perceived much better had Jeremiah Wright said something to the effect of, Americans have committed many sins, some with the best intentions, some every bit as thoughtlessly/carelessly/self-serving(ly?) as those committed by people in any other country. For our sins, we do not deserve to be blessed, but may God have mercy on us and help us to do God's will. But when people lose their tempers in the pulpit, they don't choose their words carefully.)

It would have been more "elitist" of Barack Obama to disassociate himself from Jeremiah Wright, unless you think that elitists are the only ones who work to make sense out of why people think and act the way they do. It is better than a kneejerk response (with emphasis on "jerk"), where one reacts and then tries (make that "might try") to figure things out later.

P.S. I'm so glad John McCain denounced Hagee's position on Roman Catholicism. But it appears that with such tepid support from the religious community, McCain can hardly pick and choose those religious leaders who will endorse him. Potluck, I guess.

I suppose to liberal being proud and "bragging" are one in the same thing. Then of course, to many liberals telling the truth and making something up are one in the same thing if it "advances the cause". There is no moral equivalency between McCain getting an endorsement from Hagee and Obama attending Wright's church for 20 years. In any case, here's what McCain had to say about Hagee on This Week. From that article from ABC News.........



Not quite the same as a "crazy old uncle"......

Aquilla

From Aquilla's link.

You are contradicting yourself, Aquilla, and your link makes my case.

It sounds like McCain wants it both ways. It was an error to accept Hagee's support, but he still does. If McCain is "glad to have his endorsement," then he's probably equally glad to have the money Hagee can funnel into what promises to be another squalid Republican campaign.

BTW: Aquilla there was never a bigger pack of lies told and sold than in 2004 by the Swifties and right-wing "whack jobs" like Micelle Malkin.


http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_08_15_dn...rt_archive.html

So, John Kerry shot himself just to get another Purple Heart. Burger King would have been proud of such whoppers.

This thread is quickly spiraling down...


Wertz, we're not gonna see eye to eye on whether Obama's race, baggage, etc. make nominating him "worth it" for the general election for reasons I alluded to in post #121. We're on the verge of a recession if not starting one, people are stocking up food items and we have an unpopular five-year war. If Democrats can't win with a sock puppet they either don't deserve to win or there is no point in nominating what passes for a marginally liberal candidate for the office of the presidency until the next Depression.

Nominating Clinton because the ideological and/or propaganda deck is stacked against the DNC is like making peace with Goldwater because he told Christian leaders with political influence at the beginning of movement conservatism to go to hell. I can't settle for silver linings.

The longer liberals are willing to compromise the further the scales tip until one day even Clinton isn't Reagan Democrat enough to be worthy of the nomination and have a decent shot at the GE. I can't grin and bear the thought of the GOP setting acceptable liberal parameters and I can't stand Blue Dogs breaking with the party and voting against withdrawal resolutions, even if Democrats don't have a veto-proof majority. If we keep playing by their rules sooner or later I, liberals and Democrats will not have the choice to reward our own bad actors.


Israel has been under our nuclear umbrella for decades. It annoyed me that she responded as if this wasn't already the case, or obtuse enough to leave that fact up to interpretation. It's like amnesia is the prescribed stance towards Israel in order come up with more ways to go out of our way for it.


You're correct. He's a Christian Zionist rapture nut job.

Still making stuff up here I see.... The question raised about the self-inflicted wound never had a thing to do with Kerry shooting himself. There were reports that he had thrown a grenade that landed in a rice container and when it blew up he caught some rice in his butt.

Aquilla

I've documented everything I've written. Your link to a recent McCain statement supports what I said about him wanting it both ways.

Malkins's words are open to interpretation. You are treading on dangerously thin ice of civility, Aquilla, when you accuse people of making stuff up. I object! If you are going to start throwing liar, or that implication, and such around, your credibility will soon be in the toilet along with more radically conservative members.

1) Does Hillary or McCain have a real "opening" to pile on Obama with this "speech"?

2) Did he say it badly, or did he say it right and folks didn't want to hear it?




Hillary will definitely "pile on" with this. She'll take anything she can get, especially now. It's not even a question of whether or not Obama had a point. I don't think Obama has been in politics long enough to become the liar that many politicians are. You know, the ones who will tell you anything at anytime just for your vote! THOSE! I pretty much take Obama at face value.

Obama probably could have substituted out the word "bitter" if he'd thought about it. IMO he was expressing his real feelings; that's just the impression I got, but heavens, with our 24/7 regular and cable news etc., we can't let that die! It's too good of an opportunity - let's just spin it forever and ever! I haven't even made up my mind who I will vote for yet, and this recent "spin" on the homely word "bitter" is too much for me!!

Maybe you've heard everything, but even as a junkie there are holes that I can't fill on them. I've got the tripling of the earned income credit, federalized health care, and tax increases on capital gains and for those making over $200k. Where I could use a little help is: Is Obama likely to raise tariffs as President? Would he have voted from the Brady Bill? I heard him commit to 16 months withdrawal out of Iraq no matter what, but his website still says that he'd leave troops if al Qaeda is there. Al Qaeda is there so which is it? Is he committed to NATO as it is written? I don't even need links at this point, expert opinion would be fine.

White religious leaders say this sort of stuff all the time. 9/11 was a judgement on the sins of Americans, Katrina was an act of God to punish people for embracing gays. The difference here is that Rev. Wright was condemning America for racism and violence... not it's tolerance for homosexuality. Which is worse?



Yep, quite a party leader there. He's not in anyone's pocket... , right...



And how much flack will McCain get for actually being proud of Hagee's support? Apparently, very little. Obama must both denounce and reject Farrakhan's endorsement.

I am also offended by lies. This however is the truth about John Hagee.

On the September 18, 2006, edition of National Public Radio's Fresh Air, host Terry Gross said to Hagee, "You said after Hurricane Katrina that it was an act of God, and you said 'when you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn.' " She then asked, "Do you still think that Katrina is punishment from God for a society that's becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?" Hagee responded:

HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans. link

That was Hagee in 2006. It's 2008 and he's endorsed McCain. Has he changed his opinion about the punishment of New Orleans?

On his radio show yesterday, right-wing talker Dennis Prager asked Hagee to respond to "the various charges made against him" in a fact sheet put out by the Democratic National Committee. Asked about his comments on Hurricane Katrina, Hagee said "the topic of that day was cursing and blessing":

HAGEE: Yes. The topic of that day was cursing and blessing...What happened in New Orleans looked like the curse of God, in time if New Orleans recovers and becomes the pristine city it can become it may in time be called a blessing. But at this time it's called a curse. link

I would say that Rev. Hagee is a model of consistency. His candidate was in New Orleans yesterday promising the abysmal government response by The Bush Administration would not repeated in a McCain presidency. Hopefully he stayed a safe distance away from any gay pride parades and resultant curses.

I guess it must be okay to suggest an entire city devastated by a hurricane had it coming based upon its homosexual citizens. That's certainly less offensive that suggesting they are "bitter."

But Hagee is not McCain's "crazy uncle."

He's just crazy.

I fixed a typo for you. I'm still trying to imagine how Karl Rove got those school buses not to drive themselves, and those cops not to go to work.

Do yourself a favor carlitoswhey and stick to editing your own posts. You already have a full-time job trying to organize your own thoughts, so leave mine the hell alone.

I'm not going to argue ancient history with you. During his photo-op in New Orleans, McCain criticized Bush's too little, too late and too limited response to Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. McCain ticked off a long list of mistakes by the current administration, saying there were "unqualified people in charge, there was a total misreading of the dimensions of the disaster, there was a failure of communications."

Mr. McCain made his first comments about the hurricane as a presidential candidate last April, when he announced in Portsmouth, N.H., that he was running for office.

"When Americans confront a catastrophe, natural or man-made, they have a right to expect basic competence from their government," Mr. McCain said in New Hampshire, adding that "they won't accept government's failure to deliver bottled water to dehydrated babies or rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity." link

If you want to spread the blame around to Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco I won't squawk. But if you want to be a blind Bushbot and let him off the hook totally then you need a serious reality check. There is only one entity with the resources to respond to a catastrophe like Katrina and that is the federal government and that means the buck stops at the desk of the cretin in the Oval Office.

Back to the matter at hand...

Some of The Clintonistas can't contain their need to crow a bit following Hillary's victory in Pennsylvania. Lanny Davis barfed up a top 10 list of
"undisputed facts" of why Obama can't beat McCain in November.

2. Senator Obama tried hard to win the state, campaigned intensely throughout the state for most of the last six weeks -- and was trying to win, not just lose a narrow margin.

3. He spent $11 million on media -- about three times more than Senator Clinton.

6. Barack Obama hasn't won a single major industrial state that historically constitute the key "battleground" states for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

8. Barack Obama has lost these same demographic groups in Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California and New Jersey and other major states that Senator Clinton won. There is a factual pattern of his weakness among these demographic groups in virtually every primary state that cannot be disputed.[

Those are the facts. To all Super Delegates: you decide who is riskier as a general election candidate. The candidate whose negatives, driven by the right-wing hate machine in the 1990s in particular, are all out there and already taken into account. Or a candidate who is still virtually unknown to most of the electorate, with Republicans clearly looking forward to filling in the blanks with the facts about his record of which many general election voters still are not aware. link

Davis is spinning like a hula-hoop, but even if everything he says is "the undisputed truth" there is a question that needs to be asked.

Why is Hillary Clinton losing?

A possible answer comes from blogger John Cole's Balloon Juice.


Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don't insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?

Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ***? Why?

Maybe I asked the wrong question the other day. Maybe I should have asked, "Why can't Hillary Clinton close the deal?" If she can't beat a "virtually unknown" like Barack Obama in the fall, why should any super delegate believe she can defeat the well-known John McCain in the fall?