Keep an open mind; this race isn't over
Recently on Blue Oregon I've seen supporters of Barack Obama publish comments pushing the idea that the race for the 2008 Democratic nomination was essentially over and that Hillary Clinton should drop out because of Obama's delegate lead. They've further implied that Clinton (and by extension her supporters) are somehow responsible for dividing the party just by staying in the race.
On those threads I made a couple of fairly general points: that Clinton has many millions of grassroots supporters urging her to stay in, volunteering their time and making contributions to keep her campaign going, and that in any event urging any Democratic candidate to simply quit when there's still a chance they could win is heavy-handed. As a Clinton supporter I've never urged that any other candidate drop out of the race; in fact I made campaign contributions to Edwards and Kucinich when it was clear they wouldn't win in the hope that they'd stay in longer to help frame the debate.
Strictly in terms of progressive policy and Democratic party platform, it is good that Hillary is still in this race. She pushes a more progressive health care agenda than Obama; who knows, even if he won the nomination she might be able to force a universal mandate into the party platform, which would be good for all of us. Hillary has a stronger record of commitment to the LGBT community as well as a stronger record on pro-choice issues; her strength at the convention will ensure those issues do not get swept under the rug in the name of some non-partisan "unity". I feel Hillary has a better green agenda and record on environmental issues when compared with the Obama/Axelrod ties to the nuclear industry, which I've written in detail about elsewhere. She's got experience and vision on what's needed to improve education at all levels and has decades of intimate knowledge of public policy for helping underprivileged and abused children. Hillary has spent years personally involved in crafting detailed policy proposals on economic development for the middle class. All of this expertise, progressive positioning and political clout will be a force for good at the convention; even if Obama wins a brokered or superdelegate-determined convention, Hillary might actually drive the party platform to his left on several of these issues.
But there is another reason that Democrats and progressives - even die-hard Obama supporters - need to keep an open mind, and that is the fact that vetting of Senator Obama is just beginning and it may well be - right or wrong - that he is not going to weather this storm as well as his supporters hope, and we will need to rally around Hillary. Yesterday Obama gave a very intelligent, heartfelt, and prolific address on racial issues in response to heat over his pastor Jeremiah Wright's radical comments from the pulpit over the years. As is evidenced by comments on Jeff Alworths's post here at Blue Oregon, Obama supporters felt the speech was brilliant and addressed all of the concerns anyone could have about the subject. But we wouldn't expect Obama supporters to have any other reaction; the question is how those who were seriously concerned about Rev. Wright are going to respond.
Undecided working-class Americans - who may not have sat through the entire 35-minute speech, but who have seen the Wright clips repeatedly on the news and the internet, and were in large numbers offended - may be a tougher sell than those at Blue Oregon who had already decided to support Senator Obama. Pragmatic prominent Democrats (including superdelegates) are becoming concerned how vulnerable this issue might make Obama against John McCain, with Republicans already touting that it's their silver bullet; it will be some time before we know if the issue is indeed disarmed, but current trends in polls make it appear that it is having a real negative effect, with Hillary regaining a statistically significant national lead and Obama also faring worse than he has against McCain.
I don't think any progressive Democrat believes that Senator Obama personally holds the views expressed by Rev. Wright. We also marvel at the rationality and nuance he had the courage to put forward in his speech. But we have to at the same time recognize that Wright's rhetoric is far more radical than outspoken African-American leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (the latter of whom I was proud to support in my first presidential contest in 1988), and his closeness to Obama is far more significant than, say, McCain's anti-Catholic booster (who was not a close personal friend of McCain or his family, as Wright is to Obama). The issue is not simply an issue of race, or of collective nuanced understanding of one another; it also speaks to the ability of the Obama campaign to get out in front of controversial issues and win over the center of the American electorate. Where supporters saw Obama brilliantly claiming the need to bridge these communities and not abandon Wright, critics are already saying Obama contradicted his earlier claim to have never heard Wright's incendiary, anti-American statements, that he exaggerated parallels to eccentric uncles and mis-speaking supporters of other campaigns, and in general that he may have said not too little, but too much, too late. Since the Obama campaign knew that Wright would be a liability (that's why Obama decided, late, to not have Wright participate in his Presidential campaign announcement), many strategists are wondering why this wasn't dealt with months and months ago, before it had a chance to go viral on the internet, on Fox News and in right-wing talk radio.
I do not expect this somewhat dissenting concern over the efficacy of Obama's handling of Rev. Wright to sway any Obama supporters here at Blue Oregon; I only ask you to keep an open mind, and realize that this race is far from over.
|
March 19, 2008 |
Chris Corbell | Comments (125 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Christian Prophet | Mar 19, 2008 3:22:56 PM
Barack Obama gave a good speech on race, but it's being argued that it was designed to distract from much more damaging non-racial aspects of his THEOLOGY. See:
http://christianprophecy.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 19, 2008 3:30:29 PM
Chris, since you are a Hillary supporter you might be expected to take this line. However, Hillary has no chance now to win the nomination through pledged delegates, or even come close. Therefore she can only win through the supers by trying to destroy Obama as a GE candidate. To do so is to bring the party to civil war, so she is following a doomsday strategy.That's my problem with it. If you are relying on the Wright controversy to damage him and nominate your candidate, think again. He will survive this, and the Rassmussen tracking poll of today already has him up five pts against Hillary.
If the nomination is gained through a process not considered legitimate, you can kiss the Dem. party goodbye. USA/Today poll says that a large percentage of Dems will not support the candidate who gains the nomination by vote of the supers. If we start letting the right wing spin machine determine who our candidates are, then it's time to say goodbye to this party.
Posted by: BCM | Mar 19, 2008 3:30:36 PM
Your propagation of right-wing talking points is duly noted, Chris. I don't tune into Hannity and Lars Larson so do keep me updated on what you guys are thinking about this race.
Posted by: Chris Corbell | Mar 19, 2008 3:31:35 PM
Once and for all: NEITHER OBAMA NOR HILLARY WILL WIN THROUGH PLEDGED DELEGATES. Drop the hype.
Go Hillary!
Posted by: Viki | Mar 19, 2008 3:46:34 PM
If Super delegetes were so for Obama, they could finish this race right now. They could all commit to Obama and it would be over. However, they didn’t.
Moreover, most powerful Democrats in the house John Murtha announced his endorsement of Hillary Clinton.
I think we should all see how the rest of the states will vote and what supers will say.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 19, 2008 3:53:04 PM
chris, this is absurd. Hillary Clinton cannot win the nomination, and if it were
anyone else she would have been forced our long ago. She cannot win the most states, the most primaries, the most delegates, or the popular vote. Her ONLy
chance is to sabotage the process.
It's over. Unless obama is hit by a bus, he will be ahead of Clinton by any relevant metric when all contests are over. All she's doing is hurting the party. And she's not ahead in polling, either, by the way.
Posted by: Taylor M | Mar 19, 2008 3:56:29 PM
"Neither Obama or Hillary will win through pledged delegates." You miss a crucial point- Hillary can't overcome Obama's pledged delegate lead. Even if she wins the rest of the remaining races by a score of 60-40 (she won't, by the way), she still can't overcome it. The only way she could possible win is if the Superdelegates overrule the majority of voters. How likely is that? (Hint: today she got her first superdeleage since February 5.)
March 4 was Hillary's last chance to make a big gain on Obama's pledged delegate lead. That didn't happen- in fact, Obama's slightly gained over her since then. They can't win unless superdelegates overrule the voters. Obama wins with the superdelegates joining the majority of voters, and therein lies the difference. This race is over, but the Clintons haven't gotten the memo yet.
And Hillary as shining light of LBGT rights? The DOMA? Don't Ask Don't Tell? The Clintons going on Christian radio with ads in 1996 to bash gays? Get real Chris. According to the polls, you are part of the 16% of progressives supporting Clinton. The rest of us have taken off our Clinton blinders.
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 19, 2008 3:59:13 PM
Chris: "Once and for all: NEITHER OBAMA NOR HILLARY WILL WIN THROUGH PLEDGED DELEGATES. Drop the hype.Go Hillary!"
Shout a little louder, Chris! That is so convincing.
Nancy Pelosi, who as Speaker of the House is the highest elected official, has said that the nominee of this party will be the one with the most pledged delegates, and the supers will not go against that. None other than Donna Brazile has said that she will resign from the DNC if the supers go against the primary results. It's a doomsday scenario. If the Clintons want to pursue it, then I would say we are all down the toilet, and the historic coalition that forms the Dem. party is over with.
Posted by: Glen HD28 | Mar 19, 2008 4:01:35 PM
If for the sake of argument Sen Obama wins the primary and the general elections, I am hopeful that Sen Clinton (and other progressives in Congress) will be able to help steer him in the right (er, left) directions on the issues Chris mentioned, and help restore the peace, equality and greatness America once enjoyed.
My biggest gripe with Sen Clinton is her support for giving the nod to Dubya to invade Iraq. I'm just a shlub, but I didn't see the imminant threat from Iraq, and I saw thru the lies and propaganda. Lots of others, the importanat others in Congress, also saw the truth. Why didn't Sen Clinton see this? Why would she give those lying crap-sacks Bush, Cheney, Rice & Rumsfeld the benefit of the doubt, when it was clear to so many of us that they were full of it?
This is the issue that keeps coming up in my mind, over and over, and I find it unforgivable.
I hope Sen Clinton and the others Dems who supported Bush's rush to war will author lots of strong progressive legislation for President Obama to sign, only that will be the path to redemption.
PS, If Sen Clinton wins the nomination, I will fight like hell to help her win the general election, because there's literally no tomorrow if McCain becomes President.
Vote your heart in the Primary, vote your party in the General.
Posted by: Nate Currie | Mar 19, 2008 4:03:13 PM
Well, I guess I have what would qualify as a nuanced position on the race. I think Hillary is toast, and that she has virtually zero chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates and therefore will require the superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegates resulting in a civil war within the party that would more or less tear it apart (and in reality has little chance of winning even then because superdelegates are increasingly realizing that Obama will be a MUCH better candidate for Democrats running for other offices). As long as she doesn't deliberately touch off that civil war, and stops making incredibly stupid comments complimenting the Republican nominee (not to mention blatantly false, as witnessed by McCain's recent demonstration of his cluelessness regarding foreign policy) she can stay in right through the convention as far as I'm concerned. As long as she doesn't go crazy and kneecap the whole party, I think she's entitled to stay in as long as she wants.
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 19, 2008 4:04:59 PM
short addendum:
If the situation were reversed, I would be asking Obama to concede at this point. Hillary should be making her list of concession demands now, if she wants VP, if she wants to be Majority Leader, Gov. of NY, whatever, while she still has some leverage. The longer she takes it, the less leverage she has.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 19, 2008 4:06:48 PM
Taylor, I think it's worse than you describe--she
doesn't need 60-40 popular vote wins; she needs that kind of Delegate ratio--which means she needs to take more like 75-80% of the vote. Likely? No.
It's over; has been since the 4th.
Posted by: Lani | Mar 19, 2008 4:10:57 PM
Clinton and Obama signed a pledge NOT to campaign in Florida or Michigan and also NOT to interfere in their election process.
Clinton continues to campaign in Michigan and Florida against her signed pledge. Not only that, but she's blaming Obama for their electoral problems. I'll give her points for gutsy but not for honesty.
Obama has never asked Hillary to quit. Yet Hillary and Bill said over and over again that Obama could be HER running mate. They were telling Obama to quit every time they said that.
As others have mentioned, it's impossible for her to overcome Obama's elected delegate count.
If she wins through cheating--continuing her campaign in Florida and Michigan--or by gaming the SDs, then the party's toast.
If she can't game the Democratic nomination, she wants to see McCain win. Hillary has already endorsed him in her statement about "experience" and "commander-in-chief".
Hillary doesn't know how to accept defeat gracefully but she needs to learn.
Posted by: William Neuhauser | Mar 19, 2008 4:19:10 PM
Going into the race, I was thrilled -- a lineup of Democrats giving us a wealth of riches; I could vote for any of them. I'd happily put any of the up against the old white men in identical suits all whining "No, I'm little Ronald Reagan".
I agree that calls for Hillary to drop out are absurdist imaginings -- it isn't just Hillary, any candidate in her position would continue as long as possible. That's fair.
But the way Hillary has run has dismayed me in a way I never expected. She has run as the Republican in the race, using fear and sowing division in a way that has saddened me greatly as these are tactics most of us have decried for years. The disarray of her campaign and her lack of attention to basics like how much money she had, and her strategic blunders belie the notion of her "superior experience" claim in extremis. Some positive has come of her having her back to the wall aslo as she has become a better, more authentic campaigner, speaking more from the heart.
No one can get to the position that both Obama and Clinton are at without there being some dirt that can be found, but remember that isn't even needed by the right-wingnuts since they'll just manufacture lies to smear and disgust people and turn them off. The dirt on HIllary and Barack is minor compared to the manufactured garbage.
So, now we've got most of the county and this whole thread distracted by "the horse race" and unprovable assertions of who the right wing can best attack not on substance of character and where we go from here and who can do that best for our progressive ideals. Great.
Can we move on from the circular firing squad now?
Posted by: Taylor M | Mar 19, 2008 4:27:52 PM
torridjoe, I agree with you. Maybe I didn't make my point clearly: it seems like Clinton's realistic ceiling is about 60%. So, even granting that she performs at her peak in the remaining contests, there's no way for her to make up Obama's lead. You're right, she needs about 75% in every race just to make it close. And with no Florida "momentum" hopes to buoy the campaign, they're really done.
Its always helpful to refer back to earlier statements by the more honest Clinton backers, like when in February James Carville admitted she'd need "big wins" in both Ohio and Texas to stay in. Those didn't happen, but since the goalposts got moved, she could still claim a reason to continue.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Mar 19, 2008 4:29:08 PM
To me, it is clear that Hillary cannot win the nomination unless she wins at least 80% of the Super Delegates.
I personally don't care if she stays in the race until the convention. What I do care about is the politics of destruction. That is more to the point for Democrats, as what we need to do for our Nation is to win the Presidency in November.
So, if Hillary were engaged in fair debates on policy issues, if Hillary were engaged in pointing out the huge problems McCain would create as the 3rd Bush term, if Hillary were working to put a Democrat into the White House in November - and just that - I would have no problem with her on-going campaign.
But that just isn't what's happening. What Hillary is doing is following that chapter of the Republican play book that is entitled, "Disqualify your opponent".
So, realistically, Hillary can't win, but has every right to run. But, as an-in-the-field-Democrat who wants the best for my Party, and noting Hillary's destructive campaign -
I have to call upon Hillary Clinton to end her race for the nomination. Now I know she won't do it because I ask her to, but that's my position.
At the least, if she doesn't win 60% or more of the delegates in Pennsylvannia, I hope she drops out then. At that point, if she doesn't win that number, it would be pointless to continue.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Mar 19, 2008 4:31:52 PM
Seems like calling it over is disenfranchising Oregon (as well as many other) voters. Do I agree that all the data point to Obama? Yes. Do I support Obama? Yes.
But the mathematical fact is that Clinton could win if voters choose her by overwhelming margins. Is is gonna happen? Not bloody likely. But she's pulled out some miracles so far.
Should we attack Clinton for asking people to actually vote, instead of looking at polls and trends? No. She has every right to keep running.
Hopefully, as with Conan the Barbarian (ok, Nietzsche), what does not kill Obama will make him stronger.
Posted by: Opinionated | Mar 19, 2008 4:35:36 PM
Nice post Chris. Amen to "keeping an open mind".
Posted by: joeldanwalls | Mar 19, 2008 4:43:56 PM
I support Obama. I also agree with Corbell's argument that it ain't over. Neither candidate can win without the superdelegates. Spin however fast and in whichever direction you like--it will not change that fact. And the supers are free agents, regardless of whatever opinion Obama, Clinton, Pelsi, Dean, or anyone else may have. Again, spin that as you wish--the facts don't change.
I appreciate Corbell's point about the fact that Clinton, even if she is not the nominee, can be of huge importance at the convention in terms of the party platform. This is a non-trivial matter.
Nonetheless, I have problems with several of Corbell's arguments:
I feel Hillary has a better green agenda and record on environmental issues when compared with the Obama/Axelrod ties to the nuclear industry....
There's nothing fundamentally progressive about opposing nuclear energy. IMHO the problem is waste disposal, not nuclear energy per se, and there are geologically acceptable places for the waste. Other countries are already proceeding with geologic waste repositories.
Undecided working-class Americans - who may not have sat through the entire 35-minute speech, but who have seen the Wright clips repeatedly on the news and the internet....
Bit of stereotyping here? Plenty of digital video recorders and computers in working class homes....
. Pragmatic prominent Democrats (including superdelegates) are becoming concerned how vulnerable this issue might make Obama against John McCain....
Straw-man argument. Implication is that "pragmatic" equals "thinks Obama is toast".
The issue is not simply an issue of race, or of collective nuanced understanding of one another; it also speaks to the ability of the Obama campaign to get out in front of controversial issues and win over the center of the American electorate.
Fair enough on the "get out in front" business. But it is hard to see how Hillary Clinton has done any better. Think tax returns and other ways in which her life is entangled with her spouse, but above all, think of what she has had to say about the invasion of Iraq. Hard to find a more controversial issue than that.
...critics are already saying Obama contradicted his earlier claim to have never heard Wright's incendiary, anti-American statements, that he exaggerated parallels to eccentric uncles and mis-speaking supporters of other campaigns, and in general that he may have said not too little, but too much, too late.
I think what Obama actually said is that he was not around for the "god damn the KKK USA" business. He did not mention eccentric uncles at all, and I think we all know that "mis-speaking supporters of other campaigns" is a code for Geraldine Ferraro's dumb comments.
...many strategists are wondering why this wasn't dealt with months and months ago, before it had a chance to go viral on the internet, on Fox News and in right-wing talk radio.
I don't know what "go viral" is supposed to mean, but the YouTube video of Tuesday's speech is the most-viewed ever. Faux News and wingnut talk radio fans are not exactly Obama voters anyway. And then there's the "many strategists" straw man. Finally, "dealt with"? What does that mean? I have a feeling that to Corbell and "many strategists", this means Obama cutting off Rev. Wright at the knees. I hope it's obvious from Obama's Tuesday remarks that Obama was never prepared to do that.
I guess we'll see between now and the convention. With the Willie Horton business in living memory, I expect the supers will ditch Obama if the Wright affair looks as if it'll drag the entire Party down to defeat, and I cannot say that I would blame them. But I think this is an unlikely outcome.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Mar 19, 2008 4:52:07 PM
Hillary can win the nomination, but she's going to have to do it through Superdelegates. The road is a treacherous one, but she's going to have to at least win the popular vote, excluding Michigan but including Florida and the other states that haven't been in the tally (Maine, Iowa, etc.).
If Obama has the most pledged delegates, the most states, and the popular vote, Superdelegates will have little choice but to back him. That's the whole ballgame.
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 19, 2008 4:52:13 PM
No doubt Obama has taken a polling hit of late over the Wright matter. However, the CBS poll just taken has Obama still with a lead over Clinton nationally and still with a lead over McCain nationally.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/opinion/polls/main3951729.shtml
An historical note. About this time 16 years ago I was working as a volunteer in the Bill Clinton campaign. He had taken a number of hits, Gennifer Flowers, etc. His poll numbers were at 25% nationally. Yet he was leading the Dem. primary and went on to win the GE. Polls fluctuate and Obama will recover from the latest. (This poll from CBS was taken mostly before the speech and after the controversy hit.)
My only objection to HRC staying in the race is that it is based one premise alone, a doomsday premise of destroying the GE candidacy of Obama and splitting the party. And that hurts us all. And that is precisely what her attempt has been. Randi Rhodes of Air America and others have suggested that she fully intends to have McCain win so she can have a clear shot in 2012. I'm not that paranoid yet, but it won't take me long to get there.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 19, 2008 4:52:49 PM
Maybe no one can win without superdelegates, but Hillary can't win even WITH them, as far as I can tell. As soon as obama hits 1638, it's over. (and he only needs about 50 to get there, i think ) Remember that 2025 is including FL and MI, and those delegates are now irrelevant, since neither will redo their result.
It's her right to stay in, but every other race with candidates in Hillary's position had
dropped out long ago.
Posted by: LT | Mar 19, 2008 5:01:32 PM
Regarding "keeping an open mind":
What is the evidence for this?
"Undecided working-class Americans - who may not have sat through the entire 35-minute speech, but who have seen the Wright clips repeatedly on the news and the internet, and were in large numbers offended - may be a tougher sell than those at Blue Oregon who had already decided to support Senator Obama"
Is there a poll (in which case what is the sample size?) or is this the kind of simplification and stereotyping Obama talked about?
Is it possible that those working class Americans in some cases either belong to a UCC church or know someone who does? I noticed when someone was talking about Reagan Democrats yesterday they failed to mention Macomb County, Michigan---the epicenter of Reagan Democrats which Bill Clinton carried in 1992.
I have heard this talking point in the national press--and to me the stereotype that everyone who has the kind of job known as "working class" fits the old Archie Bunker stereotype. For those of you who don't remember the show and the opening song,
http://www.songfacts.com/lyrics.php?findsong=2918
There were lines in the song like "girls were girls and men were men" and "Didn't need no welfare state, everybody pulled his weight".
And then, near the end of the show, Archie got fired from his loading dock job.
Flash forward to the 21st century, when some of the people who work in retail had gone to college, perhaps even graduated, but could only find work in retail. Are such people "working class"?
And if someone works in a factory or as some kind of technician or is somehow otherwise a member of the "working class", how do you know they are even aware of the story?
Or maybe they did watch the news and say "3 homes on our block are being foreclosed and we are supposed to be upset by what some guy's minister said several years ago?".
So yes, by all means, keep an open mind. I wouldn't mind seeing this go all the way to the convention (or at least to the rules or credentials committee) rather than having the convention be yet another informercial which the networks barely cover.
Carville famously said something along the lines of Penn. being big cities with Alabama in the middle. Who won Alabama and Mississippi? Who will win N. Carolina?
Don't trust polls on this one. With McCain's Iran/Iraq gaffe, it is not a foregone conclusion that predictions made in March will be true in November.
Posted by: Matt | Mar 19, 2008 5:43:11 PM
Maybe no one can win without superdelegates, but Hillary can't win even WITH them, as far as I can tell. As soon as obama hits 1638, it's over. (and he only needs about 50 to get there, i think ) Remember that 2025 is including FL and MI, and those delegates are now irrelevant, since neither will redo their result.
My understanding is that 2025 is NOT including Michigan and Florida, and that the total is roughly 2183 if you include their full delgations.
I'm a progressive Democrat who dislikes both Obama and Clinton (so please don't label me pro-Hillary), but I hate this rhetoric from Obama supporters. Look, the math is simple: neither Obama or Clinton can get to 2025 or 2183 without the superdelegates. What you are saying when Clinton can't win even with the superdelegates is that, as of today, if no superdelegates switch their votes at the convention, Obama will have more delegates. Great! Then at the convention, when the superdelegates have to vote, then for the first time, he will pass the minimum delegate threshold to get the nomination, and he'll win.
What I dislike from the Obama supporters is that this contest is not about who gets the most votes UNLESS and UNTIL someone gets AT LEAST 2025/2183. If Obama has 2024 and Clinton has 1974, Obama doesn't win. No one wins. And the superdelegates have to keep voting until someone has 2025. It's like if a 5th grade teacher says she'll give a cupcake to whichever student gets an A on the test. If Obama gets a B+ and Clinton gets a B, Obama doesn't get the cupcake! Just because he did better than Clinton on the test doesn't mean he fulfilled the requirements to get the cupcake.
Let's be honest: Obama isn't going to get to 2025 by the time we get to the convention. It has to happen there. So, he says, nope, let's follow the DNC rules and prevent a revote or some other solution in Florida and Michigan (which obviously will help Clinton). Then, let's break the DNC rules and require superdelegates to vote for me -- not because I have enough votes to already be the Democratic nominee -- but because I simply have the most votes without the superdelegates.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 19, 2008 7:08:20 PM
Obama supporters felt the speech was brilliant and addressed all of the concerns anyone could have about the subject. But we wouldn't expect Obama supporters to have any other reaction;...
David Gergen is one of the more impartial commentators and he gave the speech very high marks. Bay Buchanan, a staunch Conservative and Republican, also praised the speech. They are just two of many non-Obama supporters who gave favorable reviews.
Chris: When you are talking about people keeping an open mind maybe you should look in the mirror when you make that appeal. I'll be voting for Obama with some reservations, but the intelligence and character he showed with that speech offset some of my reservations. I doubt that Hillary could rise to a similar occasion. She couldn't live up to her oath to defend the Constitution, betraying it for political expediency by transferring authority to go to war from Congress to the president - and what a disaster that has been.
Posted by: Missy | Mar 19, 2008 7:08:29 PM
Obama is excelling at having it both ways.
His campaign rails against Superdelegates "overturning" the popular will while Obama courts their endorsements and puts out press releases when he lands one.
He says he is for a new day and a new way of doing things while his campaign is fighting tooth and nail to deny a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. This would result in the largest disenfranchisement of voters in this nation's history since women were finally granted the right to vote.
He says in his wonderful speech yesterday that we should have a real discussion about race instead of news programs running footage of Geraldine Ferraro over and over again . . . many days after his campaign did almost nothing but whip up hyperbolic charges of Clinton racism.
I can't wait for Hillary to make her case to Oregon.
Posted by: BloodDAnna | Mar 19, 2008 7:23:24 PM
The way I understand it, the duty of the super delegates is to decide what is best for the party and they really don't have to decide anything until the convention in August.
Pledged delegates on the other hand can change hands every time there is a legislative, county and state convention. At each event the elected precinct delegates can change parties (these are added up to create the states delegate count) and then the "pledged" delegates are reallocated. Iowa just did this and redistributed John Edwards delegates last week.
I think there would be some serious backlash if Senator Obama's promised supers started jumping ship now over the Rev Wright drama since there was alot of media coverage everytime one bailed from Hillary. You may see them trickle out once they see if the public accepts his statements he gave yesterday. Just depends on how convincing he is and if people care to see what else will fall out of his closet.
Personally, Senator Clinton is my first choice for Democratic nominee. If by chance she is not the nominee I thought about staying true to the party and voting for Senator Obama but time and again his lack of judgement and honesty have come into question, which contradicts what he has built his platform on. After the Rev Wright episode I just cannot, in good conscious vote for him in the GE.
Posted by: DF | Mar 19, 2008 7:23:44 PM
No one of any significance (or anyone that I know of) has ever decided to "break the DNC rules and require superdelegates to vote" for anyone. How would that even be enforceable? There is no way to make superdelegates vote for anyone.
Do you really think that superdelegates are going to ignore what will be a 5-7% lead in pledged delegates, same percentage in the popular vote and double the amount of states won and support the candidate that didn't win by any metric? Those votes are public and they know that their constituents are going to be watching this year. They don't dare overturn the will of the voters. They've never won when they've taken that route ('68, '84) and nobody wants to lose this time.
Not to mention that if Hillary does win by superdelegates she will have to convince the remaining 85-90% of uncommitted superdelegates ("automatic delegates"?) to support her. Not going to happen.
Her only chance is to completely trash him and hope something crazy happens. Do you really think that if she starts an inner party civil war she has any chance in hell of winning in November? I don't think she does. I'd even wager that Nader gets more votes this year than he did in 2000 if she was the nominee. You have to win fair and square to have support in the GE and there is no way she can even create the appearance of that.
If this was reversed you know people would be screaming for Barack to drop out. This is just getting more and more preposterous the further this charade goes on.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Mar 19, 2008 7:24:15 PM
Obama would be foolish not to continue to pressure the super delegates as a hedge against them voting to render the state primaries and caucuses moot at the convention.
I disagree with the general line taken in this post.
This race is over unless Hillary Clinton is willing to tear apart the Democratic Party in order to satiate her Presidential ambition.
I agree with Missy, however. I can't wait until Hillary makes her case in Oregon. My prediction is that she will lose by more than 10 percent statewide.
Posted by: DF | Mar 19, 2008 7:31:43 PM
Sorry Missy, "This would result in the largest disenfranchisement of voters in this nation's history since women were finally granted the right to vote."
Ever heard of Jim Crow?
Besides, these people were disenfranchised by the actions of their elected representatives. They were warned and they decided to be selfish. In the end, they are going to find a solution to getting these delegates seated that neither camp will love but it will be good enough. And Obama will still have a substantial lead.
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 19, 2008 7:34:18 PM
Any election/nomination process cannot command the loyalty of the Dem. voter unless it is perceived as being legitimate The nomination process established a set of rules to contest the caucuses and primaries. If the results of those elections can be overturned with impunity by party bosses then there is no legitimacy.
To date Obama has won 30 contests to Clinton's 14, and leads by 167 pledged delegates. She has a narrowing lead of roughly 39 supers, which has diminished dignificantly over the past month. He leads by 800,000 popular vote (not weighting the caucus states). Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a number of other party elders state that there is no possibility that the party supers will over-rule the results of the primary and caucus elections. They rightly understand that it would mean a civil war in the party and massive defection by major constituents in the Dem. coalition, and possibly a third party run in the GE. Not only a loss in the GE but a permanent splitting up of the Dem. party.
So you can argue all you want about this. The Dem. party is a coalition and legitimacy is necessary for any candidate to elicit support. It is clear that at this juncture a negotiating process between the two camps needs to take place to avoid a major party split, and not a tactic of destruction of the other, as seems to be the case with the Clintonites. (In case the Clinton camp is relying on do-overs in Fl and MI, forget it, not gonna happen, as per today's news.) You can repeat all the right wing talking points about Wright and try to tarnish Obama all you want, it won't resolve the issue. You can be as mean and obnoxious as you want, it won't unify the party or beat McCain. I think the best bet is probably a unity ticket, and Obama as front-runner has a claim to number one on the ticket. But the "kitchen sink" strategy is a bridge to party destruction, and frankly most of the party doesn't want to go there with you or the Clintons.
Posted by: Mac McFadden | Mar 19, 2008 7:40:27 PM
I think the candidate who is behind in the pledged delegate count should drop out of the race ........................... on May 21st.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 19, 2008 7:53:02 PM
I need to respond to Matt, who is absolutely right that 2025 is the non-FL/MI threshhold. I misread the table at first. But what I got right is that Obama is about 60 delegates away from the magic number, even if he doesn't gain another superdelegate from those who have committed now (and flipping previously committed supers at the convention qualifies as damaging behavior IMO). He's sitting on 1,418 pledged, and 247 supers. If you VERY conservatively give him the same share of remaining delegates as he's acquired to date, he comes up with a total of 1,965. The reality is that margins in PA, KY and WV are unlikely to be so kind to Clinton as the rest of the calendar will be to Obama--but let's pretend 53% is the best he can do from here on out.
So the root is that Obama needs some combination of 60 delegates--out of 846--that outperforms 53% of remaining pledged delegates and ZERO new superDs--to lock it up on the first ballot.
Let me make sure that's clear: Obama already has enough delegates in his corner to require just 1 in 5 of all remaning superdelegates at the convention (assuming the other 20% of the pledged look like the first 80%).
If you want we can run through the state totals and run the math on them, but there is virtually no chance for Clinton to catch Obama in pledged delegates, popular vote or states won (even primaries won). Obama is ahead by over 800,000 votes, and that doesn't even count caucuses! Clinton would have to shred him well beyond her current poll margins to even get much beyond the likely 100,000 - 150,00 bulge Obama stands to get just from Philadelphia...just to give her some kind of bump out of Pennsyvlania that will be strongly countered by OR and NC, likely IN if we're going to accept Clinton's conventional wisdom on PA.
If that's the case, and we get to the convention, under what scenario short of civil war does Obama not get more than 20% of the currently remaining superdelegates?
Posted by: Brienne | Mar 19, 2008 8:06:53 PM
I'm one of the few on BlueOregon that supports Hillary. I was head over heels for Obama in 2004 after his keynote and always thought the perfect plan would be Hillary in 2008 and 2012 and then Obama would be seasoned enough to take over in 2016. When it came to be that they both wanted 2008 I thought "Great, that would be cool if they both were on the same ticket!” Now it has come down to bickering and "he said," "she said" politics. I am becoming quite disillusioned with the whole matter.
I have read both Clinton's and Obama's books, and I have scrutinized their voting history. My major beef with Obama is, first, his platform of "I was against the war from the start." Now I'm 100% against the war, and have a major problem with the fact Clinton voted for it, but my issue with Obama is the fact he didn't get elected to US Congress until 2004 and he wasn't part of the same vote as Clinton. I don't think his rhetoric on this issue is fair. Second, I'm a fan of good rapport in the international community. While Obama may have the future potential to get the US back on track, I full heartedly believe Clinton already has the international connections and respect to work on fixing failing relationships from the past eight years of US bullying. Third, Obama seems to understand some of his domestic audience, but Clinton seems to understand the diversity within social classes and political parties. Remember she was raised as a republican and switched in college? If we're looking for someone to bring the whole nation together, and not just the progressives, then Clinton is our woman.
My final issue with the whole campaign is the gender politics. Hillary has been called all the names in the book (bitch, cunt, witch, and now even hawk). Check out the Princeton online dictionary, it even associates the name Hillary with a derogatory term. Remember when hecklers held up a sign at a Clinton rally saying "iron my shirt?" As the many blogs and news articles say, "What if someone yelled "shine my shoes" at an Obama rally? The tolerance of sexism in this race is outrageous and disconcerting to the millions of women who have fought to simply be considered an equal.
If you're an Obama supporter, great, but please make sure to look at the issues you’re supporting via his stance on the issues. He is extremely charismatic, yes, but he also has a ton to learn about what it means to be commander in chief. Let's stop the name calling and start focusing on what is best for the US as a player in the international community.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 19, 2008 8:19:19 PM
If we're looking for someone to bring the whole nation together, and not just the progressives, then Clinton is our woman.
You must be kidding. But thanks for the link to the Princeton dictionary.
Posted by: BloodDAnna | Mar 19, 2008 8:24:18 PM
What this has proven is that it's still ok to be sexist but racist.
Posted by: tote | Mar 19, 2008 8:44:55 PM
"""I feel Hillary has a better green agenda and record on environmental issues when compared with the Obama/Axelrod ties to the nuclear industry, which I've written in detail about elsewhere."""
Chris, put this in your pipe and smoke it:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7002
You know, the sad thing is that I probably agree with you on 90% of the bread and butter issues. What I don't agree with is anyone getting on a pedestal and blasting a democratic candidate that has more small donors than any other presidential candidate at any time, the most popular votes, and the most delagates, without at least a little rhetorical respect for both sides of your issue!
BTW, you contributed to Dennis Kucinich's campaign. Who's he endorsing again?
Just thought I might "frame the debate" a little more for you. Seems you may need it.
Ben
P.S. Please disregard my sarcastic and weary tone, I support most of Hillary's core positions but not her shameless tactics, and I think we're all getting a little weary of the above soap-box punditry both here and in the diaspora.
Posted by: John Mulvey | Mar 19, 2008 9:16:06 PM
Speaking of shameless tactics and thinly-disguised sexism, one of Obama's talking points lately has been that Hillary Clinton had minimal involvement in the Irish peace process.
Here's a different viewpoint that open-minded people ought to consider:
http://savagepolitics.com/?p=214
John
Posted by: KJBEugene | Mar 19, 2008 9:22:00 PM
Think about it, if Obama a) lost twelve states in a row, b) was still 100+ delegates behind after Ohio and Texas, and c) was trying to make Florida and Michigan count after promising that they wouldn't, he'd be back in the Senate planning his 2010 campaign for reelection. If a group of Obama's backers offered to fund a primary redo, Clinton and her supporters would be screaming for his blood.
While Clinton was never my first choice, I certainly had nothing against her and would have been content if she had won fairly. However, her conduct during this campaign has been very disillusioning. Regardless of how you feel about Obama's policies, he has consistently run a fair and honest campaign that has abided by the rules. Clinton, on the other hand, has constantly tried to change those rules in her favor, and it's just grown more and more desperate as she's fallen behind (Trying to postpone the Texas delegate count was particularly reprehensible.)
For all the talk about Obama "disenfranchising" voters, it's Clinton who has constantly written off huge portions of the country as "not mattering." She's the one who has dismissed caucus voters as mere "activists" (She'd be singing a different tune if she were the one winning them.) Her campaign has tried to piegonhole Obama's supporters as latte-sipping Prius drivers (Her spokesman even claimed that we "don't have to worry about health care." I have a wife and child and earn $20,000 a year working for a non-profit. Yeah, I don't worry about health care at all.)
Sadly, I even sense some of this elitism in Chris' crack about "working-class" people not bothering to hear all of Obama's speech. This is exactly what the corporate media and politicians want: for people to shut up, watch American Idol, and not bother with pondering complexities and trying to change things. As corny as it may sound, I honestly believe that Obama wants us to hard questions and look beyond what we're spoonfed every day, and I'm clearly not alone.
If you honestly feel that Clinton is the better candidate, then by all means support her. Just don't throw stones and pout when she loses fairly.
Posted by: William Neuhauser | Mar 19, 2008 9:29:34 PM
RE: "If we're looking for someone to bring the whole nation together, and not just the progressives, then Clinton is our woman."
Here's the thought experiment I conduct with people: In December 2008, after a Democrat was elected President, will the news stories be all about (a) the Obama Republicans and how he's reshaped the electoral map? or (b) the Clinton Republicans and how she has reshaped the electoral map?
No one, including Hillary supporters, I've talked to answers to (b) as a possibility. Ain't happen'n'. Not to say she might not be able to win, but not in that way building a new coalition across our accustomed boundaries.
Both of them will alienate bigots -- race or gender -- which I'm happy to have vote Republican as well as pull over people who vote to make an identity statement. But LBJ was correct to do the right thing and support civil rights even at the cost of racist Democrats defecting to Republicans for decades; I'm glad we have that opportunity another 40+ years later to put a stake in the ground for equality in America, whichever candidate gets the nod.
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Mar 19, 2008 9:41:05 PM
I am just tired of the sleaziness that seems to be part and parcel of the "Bill and Hillary Clinton Experience." Barack Obama appeals "To the better angels of our nature."
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Mar 19, 2008 9:52:58 PM
brienne, thanks for sharing your perspective. one thing you should consider, however, is how Hillary came to her vote on the war: she did not read the 90-pg NIE on Iraq (here's one reference, which points out many Senators did not read it, for which they should resign in shame). she did not read it. she went to some damn White House briefing -- and that was about it. what the hell kind of way is that to send Americans off to war?
and since then, unlike John Edwards who at least had the guts to say he was wrong, she's taken no responsibility for her role in this mess. she blames Bush, but she gave him her permission to invade a country that was not a threat. you say Obama wasn't there for that vote and that makes a difference? given what we know of him, and of the fact that he actually does read things like the NIE, what in the world makes anyone think he would have voted with Bush and against, say, Wyden or Feingold?
and i don't know what tolerance of sexism you're talking about in reference to Obama. find me one instance where he or his campaign engaged in sexist behavior. when Ferraro dumped her racist baggage for all to see, Hillary didn't demand she resign from the campaign; she hemmed and hawed as if there really weren't anything wrong with Ferraro's words. yet only days earlier, when Power made her dumb "monster" comment (once, off-the-record), she was gone by morning. it wasn't even a sexist comment, but Obama and his people demonstrated zero-tolerance. there may be a ton of sexism in the media (ok, no "may be") but as we've seen with all bazillions of replays of Rev Wright on CNN and everywhere else, not to mention PA Gov Ed Rendell's admission that many whites in his state will vote for Hillary but not a black man, i think sexism runs a sad second to racism (not that that's a battle anyone would be proud to win).
please feel free to make the case for Hillary. i'm more impressed (albeit unconvinced) by your words than anything Chris or katy (who was waiting on deck to say, "me too" -- well organized, kids) have had to say. just don't accuse Obama of sexism, becaues that's a case you will fail to make -- big time.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Mar 19, 2008 10:15:43 PM
and Chris, you might want to find some job other than political prognosticator. back on Oct 31, you opined that the Obama and Edwards campaigns were both failures.
ok. i'll give you credit. you were half-right.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 19, 2008 10:22:54 PM
And I must say that this idea that if you're for Obama that you must be a sexist got old months ago. I don't support a candidate because of their sex, race, religion, etc. I support a candidate based on their issues, how they run their campaign, etc. And in this case, Obama won hands down.
If there were two candidates that were even on it all, then I might take sex, race, etc. into consideration, since it could mean electing someone who is from a community not well represented.
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 19, 2008 10:23:50 PM
The NY Times has an article running tomorrow by Adam Nagourney on the Clinton Strategy to win it with supers.
New York Times:
Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election.
That argument could be Mrs. Clinton’s last hope for winning this contest."
And this from Americablog- we hear the same Clinton concern trolling from Chris. It's their strategy. So keep on doing their work, Chris! Sean Hannity would be proud!:
"We also hear via various reporters, that Team Clinton won't go near the Rev. Wright issue. But, that's not true. Lanny Davis, one of the most loathesome Hillary spinmeisters, has an insidious post up at Huffington challenging the Obama speech.
Davis is a constant presence on cable news for Clinton -- just like he was for Joe Lieberman (and for Bill Clinton back in the late nineties). He knows the Clinton campaign talking points. He knows the impact his words will have because of his long and close relationship with the Clintons. He knows the Republicans will use his arguments. This wasn't some off-the-cuff quote, it was a deliberately written blog post. It is written in the style of the quintessential concern troll. Davis liked the Obama speech, he writes, but, you know, there are "questions."
Apparently, some of Clinton's surrogates are allowed to attack the Obama speech and his relationship with Rev. Wright after all. What a surprise, huh? And, as noted, Davis has questions for Obama, two questions actually. His concern also raises questions for Davis himself: Who put him up to writing this Huffington Post piece? and Who came up with the two questions? There's no way anyone this close to the Clinton campaign would just spontaneously do something like that post.
More importantly, the Davis post is part of the Clinton's last ditch effort to destroy the Obama nomination. They want Democrats (i.e. superdelegates) to think Obama can't be elected in November. Now that Michigan and Florida re-votes aren't happening, "electability" is the final card in the Clinton deck. And, it's a fear factor card. You'll hear it a lot over the next couple days and weeks. But ignore the concern trolls like Davis. And, don't kid yourself: The Republicans want to face Hillary. But, the GOPers are clever enough to play along with the Lanny Davis/Clinton strategy if it means damaging Obama. That's something the Clinton campaign and the Republicans have in common."
Posted by: James X. | Mar 19, 2008 10:38:08 PM
There's no special "Wright Test" in the primary, nor is it necessary to conduct a poll to see how people not paying attention feel. (And you'd have to be paying exceedingly little attention not to see repeated highlights of, and effusive praise for, that speech.) The test is who wins the most delegates.
It's also naive to think that Clinton's been vetted (she's withholding basic documents from the press and public record) or that only Obama will be the subject of the media's "scandal of the week" mentality.
Ultimately, our opinions on this are immaterial, because Clinton needs 71.5% across the board in every remaining congressional district, with a little room for less in smaller CDs with lower thresholds, to get the delegates necessary to win. She simply is not going to be the nominee.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Katy | Mar 19, 2008 3:17:04 PM
Great post Chris!