Barack Obama and his staff are already gearing up for the general election and what do you think is a main focus of the campaign? According to at least one recent article, winning white Democrats in…Ohio and Pennsylvania! No matter, of course, that the Obama campaign, just as they are currently doing regarding Tuesday’s primary in West Virginia, spent a lot of time and energy on minimizing the importance of these states in the primary and, you guessed it, white working class voters.
As I write, Obama is supposedly getting boots on the ground in these states and setting up his organization to get a group of voters he is all too aware is crucial to his general election chances (see NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11strategy.html?ref=politics).
Other critical aspects of Obama’s general election campaign include making use of the organizational machinery he has used so well in the primaries and especially the caucuses to generate new voters in the demographic groups in which Obama excels—younger voters and blacks.
Bigger turnouts than either Gore or Kerry managed coupled with getting the constituencies Hillary Clinton currently is getting—white working class voters, older voters, and Hispanics—would likely mean victory for the Democrats in November. Unfortunately, Obama cannot count on getting the constituencies Clinton is doing well with. He will get some of these voters, of course, but many will likely go to McCain or perhaps not vote at all. Obama had weeks, for example, between the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries and more money than he knew what to do with to convince white working class Democrats that he was the better candidate. In the end, despite the time and money, he did no better in the state than the February 8 delegate count predictions leaked by his campaign following Super Tuesday.
Astonishingly, given that he nearly has the Party’s nomination in hand, Obama has won the white Democrat vote in only three primaries—his home state of Illinois, Vermont, and New Mexico. Can Obama make up for his weakness with white Democrats by pumping up the volume of new voters? Unlikely, I think. Younger voters make up the smallest percentage of all voters in past elections, so even a significant bump in this group will probably mean little. And black voters? There simply aren’t enough of them to make much of a difference in the states where he will need them to solve the much different electoral college equation in the math of the general election.
Proportional representation; caucuses, where the votes of a relatively few activists are hugely magnified; and the awarding of delegates based on county and precinct turnouts in previous elections, permitted Obama to launch and be successful with a strategy of accretion—winning the caucuses and picking off just enough delegates in the big states to get more overall pledged delegates. All of these Democratic primary structures are meaningless in the general election, though, where each state is winner-take-all. Had this they not played a role in the Democratic primary, and each state awarded all delegates to the victor, Obama would have been sitting on the sidelines a long time ago.
Obama now has before him, or almost has before him, the task of registering and getting out a huge number of new Democratic voters and winning over enough voters from the very Democrats that have shown little tendency to support him. He could accomplish these things, but far more likely is that the unforgiving format of the general election will throw into garish relief Obama’s weakness with the voters in the states where he will have to do especially well.
Obama’s early general election focus on states like Ohio and Pennsylvania belie his campaign’s trumpeting of victories in Idaho and Wyoming and the more fundamental argument that Obama is a candidate who will change the lines of the red/blue state electoral college map as they have been drawn the last several general elections.
Obama is all too aware that he must do well in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and, yes, West Virginia, and with white voters in states like these in order to have a chance at the presidency.
As the superdelegates stand on the verge of making Obama the Democratic Party’s nominee, it isn’t clear how anyone in the party, let alone the superdelegates, the party cognoscenti supposedly, was not aware a long time ago that Obama needed these voters too, and that his inability to get them, makes him a very flawed candidate for the general election.
Unable to win the white Democratic vote in any Democratic primary except for Illinois or Vermont and yet the Party's nominee or soon to be anyway??
It sounds almost too ludicrous to write.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Hell No, HRC Won’t Go
Should Hillary Clinton pull out of the race after her anemic victory in Indiana and her loss in North Carolina? A lot of people think she should. These are, as you might imagine, generally Obama supporters like Bill “Judas” Richardson and George “I’m Still Reeling from that Beating I Sustained in ’72” McGovern or media embedded Obama campaign operatives such as MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. But even these cretins may have a point.
Although neither Obama or Clinton can win the nomination now without the help of the superdelegates, the likelihood of getting them to support Clinton is not good unless Obama says something extraordinarily idiotic, a la Bittergate, or we find that Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy, Midwesterners just like Obama, were close associates of the man who wants the thankless task of running this country.
I wrote near the end of March, with an eye on the Pennsylvania primary in April, that HC should stay in the race at least until after the May 6 primaries in Indiana and NC and reassess her chances at the point.
Well, she didn’t do terribly well in Indiana or North Carolina, but given the deconstruction of Obama that is already in full swing, I am glad I hedged my bets. It’s not so much because I believe Obama will fall on his face before the primaries are over in July, but because I believe that HC is the better candidate and, while she still has any chance at all, should stay in the race. West Virginia and Kentucky are coming up on May 13th and 20th, respectively, and by all measures she should do very well in both. Voters in these states as well as Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, where Obama is expected to do well, deserve to weigh in. Puerto Rico, too, which is the final Democratic contest in this campaign, should have its say, infrequent as this is anytime else for Puerto Ricans.
And speaking of having their voices heard, who knows what kind of shenanigans Clinton may engage in concerning the voters of Florida and Michigan who have been treated so shabbily by the Party Poobah. I wouldn’t mind hearing HC wax righteous about the Democrats disenfranchising the voters from these states that are certain to be crucial in the general election or watching Obama walk the razor’s edge of appearing respectful of such voters while doing everything he can to ensure that their votes will not be counted, at least as they are currently tallied.
More important, though, I want the race to continue because I’ve learned a hell of a lot about the Democratic nominating process. Things I and my drinking buddies would never have known had we not become so embroiled in this process and the 2008 Democratic campaigns in general, and had we continued every evening to watch, instead, Wheel of Fortune and reruns of Three’s Company.
So let the games continue. There is still much free advertising to be had, the bloodletting has not yet reached the ankles, and the Democrats are likely to get their collective populist arse kicked by a decrepit little martinet in November anyway.
So HC, here’s to you, as you put it in your speech before the returns from Indiana were even in, as you follow the “path straight to the White House;” however it is you might come to get there or even if you will soon be comforting yourself with sentiments like a “man’s reach should exceed his grasp,” and “it isn’t about the destination but the journey.”
Vanna, we hardly knew ya.
Although neither Obama or Clinton can win the nomination now without the help of the superdelegates, the likelihood of getting them to support Clinton is not good unless Obama says something extraordinarily idiotic, a la Bittergate, or we find that Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy, Midwesterners just like Obama, were close associates of the man who wants the thankless task of running this country.
I wrote near the end of March, with an eye on the Pennsylvania primary in April, that HC should stay in the race at least until after the May 6 primaries in Indiana and NC and reassess her chances at the point.
Well, she didn’t do terribly well in Indiana or North Carolina, but given the deconstruction of Obama that is already in full swing, I am glad I hedged my bets. It’s not so much because I believe Obama will fall on his face before the primaries are over in July, but because I believe that HC is the better candidate and, while she still has any chance at all, should stay in the race. West Virginia and Kentucky are coming up on May 13th and 20th, respectively, and by all measures she should do very well in both. Voters in these states as well as Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, where Obama is expected to do well, deserve to weigh in. Puerto Rico, too, which is the final Democratic contest in this campaign, should have its say, infrequent as this is anytime else for Puerto Ricans.
And speaking of having their voices heard, who knows what kind of shenanigans Clinton may engage in concerning the voters of Florida and Michigan who have been treated so shabbily by the Party Poobah. I wouldn’t mind hearing HC wax righteous about the Democrats disenfranchising the voters from these states that are certain to be crucial in the general election or watching Obama walk the razor’s edge of appearing respectful of such voters while doing everything he can to ensure that their votes will not be counted, at least as they are currently tallied.
More important, though, I want the race to continue because I’ve learned a hell of a lot about the Democratic nominating process. Things I and my drinking buddies would never have known had we not become so embroiled in this process and the 2008 Democratic campaigns in general, and had we continued every evening to watch, instead, Wheel of Fortune and reruns of Three’s Company.
So let the games continue. There is still much free advertising to be had, the bloodletting has not yet reached the ankles, and the Democrats are likely to get their collective populist arse kicked by a decrepit little martinet in November anyway.
So HC, here’s to you, as you put it in your speech before the returns from Indiana were even in, as you follow the “path straight to the White House;” however it is you might come to get there or even if you will soon be comforting yourself with sentiments like a “man’s reach should exceed his grasp,” and “it isn’t about the destination but the journey.”
Vanna, we hardly knew ya.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Electing the Unelectable: A Peculiarly Democratic Malady
The tragically flawed Democratic nominating process rolled on last night as Obama won North Carolina by 14 percentage points and Hillary Clinton eked out a two-point victory in Indiana.
As expected, pundits and politicians, except those backing Clinton, are talking about “impossible delegate math,” Obama’s “stranglehold” on the nomination and other such nonsense. Nonsense, of course, because the race has been about the superdelegates for some time now, neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to win the nomination without the help of the superdelegates.
Although the math is anything but impossible with the superdelegates, it is unlikely Clinton will be able to convince the superdelegates to vote for her over Obama, fearful as they are alienating black voters.
Because if they need a reason to be convinced as to Clinton’s electability there was no better indication of this then last night.
In both primaries Obama was beaten silly in the category of white Democrats, losing this demographic 64-36 percent in Indiana and 62-37 in North Carolina. In Indiana, white Democrats made up 49 percent of all voters and in NC, 42 percent.
As I have written recently, Obama has performed poorly with white Democrats from beginning, including nearly all the primaries he has won. In fact, Obama has won white Democrats just three times—in his home state of Illinois, Vermont, where he nabbed the latter’s Ben and Jerry, and Bernie Sanders voters who are hardly representative of the rest of the country, and New Mexico, a state he lost.
I don’t know if there are statistics for this, but I can say with certainty that there has never been a Democratic nominee that has won the white Democrat vote in just three primaries.
If Obama’s problem with white Democrats isn’t enough to convince the superdelegates, perhaps the flight of the independent and Republican voters—voters Obama must have in order to win the general election—will do the trick.
Clinton won white independents and white Republicans in both Indiana and NC last night. You know, the folks whose supposed attraction to Obama distinguished his candidacy from other Democrats. The Rush Limbaugh factor at work, you say? If any of these people were voting for Clinton simply to throw the Democrats in chaos, as the hopelessly megalomaniacal Limbaugh claimed, they certainly won’t be voting for either Clinton or Obama in November, no matter who is the Party’s nominee. So much for Rush.
The Democrats are in big trouble right now and are unlikely to extricate themselves from the tortuous nominating process they created, which even after all the ostensibly populist twists and turns (caucuses, proportional representation, awarding delegates in Texas based on shoe size) isn’t nearly as efficient or democratic as the Republican winner take all process. Most astonishingly, the Democratic nominating process fails to leave out of its meandering itinerary, as a stop, let alone its final destination, the goal of electability.
If Democrats were genuinely concerned with electability, even with the rat’s maze of a nominating process they have crafted, they might have avoided being in the dark place they now find themselves: in the center of the labyrinth and on the verge of sending forth another candidate to almost certain defeat. (As if to punctuate the extent of this fiasco, George McGovern, the Democratic candidate so thoroughly trounced by Nixon in 1972, endorsed Obama today, an event as ominous as the ancient mariner’s shooting of the albatross.)
Is there any kind of counseling available for the psychic ills of the Democratic Party, with its misplaced idealism, uncritical thinking, or just plain stupidity? If McCain is elected can Democrats claim temporary insanity? Can they get a do over?
The answer to these questions, of course, is no.
And then we’ll all need a turn on the couch when Grandpa McCain picks a couple or three supreme court justices, completes Bush’s job of privatizing Medicare, and plows ahead with an immoral, impractical, and stupendously expensive war in Iraq.
As expected, pundits and politicians, except those backing Clinton, are talking about “impossible delegate math,” Obama’s “stranglehold” on the nomination and other such nonsense. Nonsense, of course, because the race has been about the superdelegates for some time now, neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to win the nomination without the help of the superdelegates.
Although the math is anything but impossible with the superdelegates, it is unlikely Clinton will be able to convince the superdelegates to vote for her over Obama, fearful as they are alienating black voters.
Because if they need a reason to be convinced as to Clinton’s electability there was no better indication of this then last night.
In both primaries Obama was beaten silly in the category of white Democrats, losing this demographic 64-36 percent in Indiana and 62-37 in North Carolina. In Indiana, white Democrats made up 49 percent of all voters and in NC, 42 percent.
As I have written recently, Obama has performed poorly with white Democrats from beginning, including nearly all the primaries he has won. In fact, Obama has won white Democrats just three times—in his home state of Illinois, Vermont, where he nabbed the latter’s Ben and Jerry, and Bernie Sanders voters who are hardly representative of the rest of the country, and New Mexico, a state he lost.
I don’t know if there are statistics for this, but I can say with certainty that there has never been a Democratic nominee that has won the white Democrat vote in just three primaries.
If Obama’s problem with white Democrats isn’t enough to convince the superdelegates, perhaps the flight of the independent and Republican voters—voters Obama must have in order to win the general election—will do the trick.
Clinton won white independents and white Republicans in both Indiana and NC last night. You know, the folks whose supposed attraction to Obama distinguished his candidacy from other Democrats. The Rush Limbaugh factor at work, you say? If any of these people were voting for Clinton simply to throw the Democrats in chaos, as the hopelessly megalomaniacal Limbaugh claimed, they certainly won’t be voting for either Clinton or Obama in November, no matter who is the Party’s nominee. So much for Rush.
The Democrats are in big trouble right now and are unlikely to extricate themselves from the tortuous nominating process they created, which even after all the ostensibly populist twists and turns (caucuses, proportional representation, awarding delegates in Texas based on shoe size) isn’t nearly as efficient or democratic as the Republican winner take all process. Most astonishingly, the Democratic nominating process fails to leave out of its meandering itinerary, as a stop, let alone its final destination, the goal of electability.
If Democrats were genuinely concerned with electability, even with the rat’s maze of a nominating process they have crafted, they might have avoided being in the dark place they now find themselves: in the center of the labyrinth and on the verge of sending forth another candidate to almost certain defeat. (As if to punctuate the extent of this fiasco, George McGovern, the Democratic candidate so thoroughly trounced by Nixon in 1972, endorsed Obama today, an event as ominous as the ancient mariner’s shooting of the albatross.)
Is there any kind of counseling available for the psychic ills of the Democratic Party, with its misplaced idealism, uncritical thinking, or just plain stupidity? If McCain is elected can Democrats claim temporary insanity? Can they get a do over?
The answer to these questions, of course, is no.
And then we’ll all need a turn on the couch when Grandpa McCain picks a couple or three supreme court justices, completes Bush’s job of privatizing Medicare, and plows ahead with an immoral, impractical, and stupendously expensive war in Iraq.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Hillary Clinton and her Electability Castor Oil for the Superdelegates
From the outset of the 2008 race for the Democratic nomination in early January to today’s primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, Barack Obama has rarely won a majority of white Democrat votes in the primaries. This is not such a big deal perhaps when John Edwards was still in the race and competing for such voters, but noteworthy if you consider that since Edwards dropped out of the race Obama has won only the white Democrat vote in the primary in Illinois, his home state, Vermont, a state so liberal it doesn’t belong in the United States, and New Mexico, a state he lost. Obama’s lack of success with white Democrats includes states such as Maryland and Virginia, which Obama won handily (with 60 and 64 percent of the total vote, respectively).
This should be troubling to Democrats under any circumstances, should Obama be the Party’s nominee, but his performance with white Democrats is especially troubling when coupled with the fact that Obama has needed significant help from independents and even Republicans to win in nearly all of the primary states he has won thus far.
Obama is certain to lose some of these non-Democrat voters in the general election, if he is the Party’s nominee, “naturally.” That is, many independents and Republicans will return to the fold as more is known about him now, he is no longer a novelty, and the Rush Limbaugh factor—where independents and Republicans voted for one or the other of the Democratic candidates because Rush or some other windbag exhorted them to muck up the process—doesn’t play a role.
Obama is also certain to lose some of the independent and Republican voters, “unnaturally,” through the predations of the Wright issue, Bittergate, former Weather Underground member, William Ayers, lack of patriotic appropriate personal jewelry (flag lapel pin) and such stuff.
While it would be wrong to simply transfer current voting patterns from the Democratic primary to the general election whole hog, this confluence of events, demographics, and voting patterns ought to give the superdelegates some pause.
Especially as John McCain, a candidate who seemingly has no other qualities or abilities than to appeal to independents, yellow dog Democrats, and others skittish of Obama because of his bowling skills, former pastor, or the color of his skin, is standing heroically at the ready to welcome these folks who have been flirting with Obama into the welcoming and comforting arms of the Republican party. “My friends,” he will say (over and over again, no doubt), “you needn’t worry about me. At least the racist and whacked out pastor who supports me is white, and is a big fan of NASCAR… “So what if I am surrounded by lobbyists, and have them run my campaign though I profess to abhor their very souls…So what if I don’t know a Shiite from a Sunni, a micro economic from a macro one.” And the real kicker—“We’ll stay in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary, so we won’t have to fight them Sunnis or Shiites or whatever they are in the US of A.”
Very heartening, indeed.
And yet this is very likely where Democrats are headed, though, unless, as unlikely as it is, Hillary Clinton were to win both Indiana and North Carolina tonight or, later down the road should she survive tonight by at least winning Indiana, the superdelegates were to throw their support behind Clinton because she, through her training in Arkansas and her life with Bill, somehow inspires (or at least frightens less) white nabobs more than Obama.
Odd as it sounds—to Obama supporters or most of those in the media anyway—Clinton is more likely to get Obama’s supporters in the general election than the other way around. You may chalk this up to racism, Obama’s inexperience, or the fact that Clinton has done a much better job of positioning herself as the candidate of the center, instead of the left (an old and supremely successful Clinton trick), but the fact is, despite what Obama himself says, Clinton is more likely to get the liberal and black voters Obama is currently getting than he is to get the white working class or retired voters, yellow dog Democrats, and others that are part of the conservative wing of the Democratic party.
And, like it not, these folks are certain to play a crucial role in choosing the next president of the United States.
This should be troubling to Democrats under any circumstances, should Obama be the Party’s nominee, but his performance with white Democrats is especially troubling when coupled with the fact that Obama has needed significant help from independents and even Republicans to win in nearly all of the primary states he has won thus far.
Obama is certain to lose some of these non-Democrat voters in the general election, if he is the Party’s nominee, “naturally.” That is, many independents and Republicans will return to the fold as more is known about him now, he is no longer a novelty, and the Rush Limbaugh factor—where independents and Republicans voted for one or the other of the Democratic candidates because Rush or some other windbag exhorted them to muck up the process—doesn’t play a role.
Obama is also certain to lose some of the independent and Republican voters, “unnaturally,” through the predations of the Wright issue, Bittergate, former Weather Underground member, William Ayers, lack of patriotic appropriate personal jewelry (flag lapel pin) and such stuff.
While it would be wrong to simply transfer current voting patterns from the Democratic primary to the general election whole hog, this confluence of events, demographics, and voting patterns ought to give the superdelegates some pause.
Especially as John McCain, a candidate who seemingly has no other qualities or abilities than to appeal to independents, yellow dog Democrats, and others skittish of Obama because of his bowling skills, former pastor, or the color of his skin, is standing heroically at the ready to welcome these folks who have been flirting with Obama into the welcoming and comforting arms of the Republican party. “My friends,” he will say (over and over again, no doubt), “you needn’t worry about me. At least the racist and whacked out pastor who supports me is white, and is a big fan of NASCAR… “So what if I am surrounded by lobbyists, and have them run my campaign though I profess to abhor their very souls…So what if I don’t know a Shiite from a Sunni, a micro economic from a macro one.” And the real kicker—“We’ll stay in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary, so we won’t have to fight them Sunnis or Shiites or whatever they are in the US of A.”
Very heartening, indeed.
And yet this is very likely where Democrats are headed, though, unless, as unlikely as it is, Hillary Clinton were to win both Indiana and North Carolina tonight or, later down the road should she survive tonight by at least winning Indiana, the superdelegates were to throw their support behind Clinton because she, through her training in Arkansas and her life with Bill, somehow inspires (or at least frightens less) white nabobs more than Obama.
Odd as it sounds—to Obama supporters or most of those in the media anyway—Clinton is more likely to get Obama’s supporters in the general election than the other way around. You may chalk this up to racism, Obama’s inexperience, or the fact that Clinton has done a much better job of positioning herself as the candidate of the center, instead of the left (an old and supremely successful Clinton trick), but the fact is, despite what Obama himself says, Clinton is more likely to get the liberal and black voters Obama is currently getting than he is to get the white working class or retired voters, yellow dog Democrats, and others that are part of the conservative wing of the Democratic party.
And, like it not, these folks are certain to play a crucial role in choosing the next president of the United States.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Barack Obama, the Gasoline Tax Holiday, and Monkey Business
Barack Obama’s recent stance on the so-called gas tax holiday is interesting because in an odd way it’s a measure of how distant he is from achieving what are ostensibly the core goals of his campaign—transforming politics as usual by being honest with voters and making tough instead of politically expedient choices, and making government more accessible and transparent.
Obama is absolutely corrct to call the gas tax holiday supported by Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain and which would remove gas taxes during the upcoming summer months, a “gimmick” and a “shell game.” Most agree that the average American would get something like a “free” half tank of gas. If Clinton and McCain were really interested about doing something about gasoline prices they should work to fundamentally change the price structure and availability of gasoline or, better yet, come up with specifics for alternative energy sources and increased public transportation. Although drivers won’t benefit much by the tax holiday, the government will lose quite a bit of revenue—about 9 billion according to some estimates (Bob Herbert, NY Times, 5-3-2008).
While Obama’s position is refreshing and consistent with what he claims his candidacy is about, his positions on much more important issues such as health care, the economy, and protecting Americans’ privacy, are much more typical of politics as usual.
He claims his health care plan offers universal care and yet he wouldn't require adults, just their children, to carry health care insurance. Most everyone familiar with the notion of providing universal health care recognizes that that a mandate is necessary—to cover all Americans and to ensure that the risk pool is large enough to bring down costs by minimizing the effects of the chronically ill. On the economy and the FISA bill, the latter of which would permit retroactive immunity from lawsuits for telephone and internet companies providing user information to the government, Obama has, respectively, been vague and opaque or not even voted on an issue sure to be controversial.
While there is danger, of course, in Obama speaking the truth—that a robust program of increased taxes and program cuts are necessary to save Social Security and right an economy in recession or to go on record as being against the FISA bill will subverts American’s rights under the guise of protecting them—Obama has established for himself expectations that Hillary Clinton and McCain have not. It isn’t, of course, that Clinton and McCain are not just as vague or even duplicitous on most of these issues, but that their campaigns aren’t fundamentally framed as being about change or the transformation of politics as usual.
Not meeting these expectations, despite such early promise and such skillful oratory, is certainly at least partially responsible for some of the sheen coming off Obama’s campaign recently. In this context, Jeremiah Wright and “Bittergate” are to Obama what Donna Rice and “Monkey Business” were to Gary Hart. In other words, they are not so important in and of themselves but signs of a more profound unease about Hart’s truthfulness, in general, or with Obama, not so much about his truthfulness per se but rather about whether he really does represent something new or whether he is just old wine in a new bottle.
The dissonance between Obama’s soaring and inspirational oratory about change, transparency, reconciliation and the like, and the reality of his campaign, in which he has been just as vague and innocuous on controversial issues as the other candidates, is certainly a problem. His primary problem, however, remains the attributes that always trip up Democratic candidates—the perception that Obama is too liberal, that his patriotism is suspect, that he may be weak on terrorism, the war in Iraq (fill in the blank).
In addition to these weaknesses, which Republicans are already exploiting in congressional races in the several southern states, Obama is, by nearly any standard, woefully inexperienced. Early on in the campaign, when the Iraq war was pretty much front and center, he was able to turn this liability into an asset, winning much applause when he said that George Bush and Clinton have a lot of experience and look where that has got us. True enough, but when push comes to shove, folks who are concerned about security, the war in Iraq, and the other potential horrors that Republicans will have peppered them with throughout the general election, may well think twice before voting for Obama.
Obama’s stance on the gas tax, then, heartening as it is, is small potatoes in comparison to his actions concerning health care, the economy, privacy, and even the war in Iraq (something he has voted to continue to fund since he has been in the US Senate). And it is unlikely that this will change in the final rounds of the race for the Democratic nomination. This is probably the smart, politically savvy thing to do. He remains the odds-on favorite to win the nomination and there are dangers in offering specifics on controversial issues or speaking about the kinds of hard choices that must be made to keep Social Security solvent, or to keep the economy upright.
If Obama continues to be a politician like any other in the general election, though, this, along with the elephants’ portrayal of him as a godless, leftwing, pinko, with less experience than some city councilmen, will spell serious trouble for the Democrats. Obama’s baggage is becoming way too heavy for the Democratic baggage handlers to carry and there is certain to be a lot more before November.
So what happens if the Democrats elect another candidate ripe for a drubbing? Perhaps we can put that free half tank of gas and few extra dollars from the tax rebate to good use and console ourselves for a night in a Motel 6 on the edge of town, with HBO blasting away, and a couple rounds of vibrating massage from the Magic Fingers.
Obama is absolutely corrct to call the gas tax holiday supported by Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain and which would remove gas taxes during the upcoming summer months, a “gimmick” and a “shell game.” Most agree that the average American would get something like a “free” half tank of gas. If Clinton and McCain were really interested about doing something about gasoline prices they should work to fundamentally change the price structure and availability of gasoline or, better yet, come up with specifics for alternative energy sources and increased public transportation. Although drivers won’t benefit much by the tax holiday, the government will lose quite a bit of revenue—about 9 billion according to some estimates (Bob Herbert, NY Times, 5-3-2008).
While Obama’s position is refreshing and consistent with what he claims his candidacy is about, his positions on much more important issues such as health care, the economy, and protecting Americans’ privacy, are much more typical of politics as usual.
He claims his health care plan offers universal care and yet he wouldn't require adults, just their children, to carry health care insurance. Most everyone familiar with the notion of providing universal health care recognizes that that a mandate is necessary—to cover all Americans and to ensure that the risk pool is large enough to bring down costs by minimizing the effects of the chronically ill. On the economy and the FISA bill, the latter of which would permit retroactive immunity from lawsuits for telephone and internet companies providing user information to the government, Obama has, respectively, been vague and opaque or not even voted on an issue sure to be controversial.
While there is danger, of course, in Obama speaking the truth—that a robust program of increased taxes and program cuts are necessary to save Social Security and right an economy in recession or to go on record as being against the FISA bill will subverts American’s rights under the guise of protecting them—Obama has established for himself expectations that Hillary Clinton and McCain have not. It isn’t, of course, that Clinton and McCain are not just as vague or even duplicitous on most of these issues, but that their campaigns aren’t fundamentally framed as being about change or the transformation of politics as usual.
Not meeting these expectations, despite such early promise and such skillful oratory, is certainly at least partially responsible for some of the sheen coming off Obama’s campaign recently. In this context, Jeremiah Wright and “Bittergate” are to Obama what Donna Rice and “Monkey Business” were to Gary Hart. In other words, they are not so important in and of themselves but signs of a more profound unease about Hart’s truthfulness, in general, or with Obama, not so much about his truthfulness per se but rather about whether he really does represent something new or whether he is just old wine in a new bottle.
The dissonance between Obama’s soaring and inspirational oratory about change, transparency, reconciliation and the like, and the reality of his campaign, in which he has been just as vague and innocuous on controversial issues as the other candidates, is certainly a problem. His primary problem, however, remains the attributes that always trip up Democratic candidates—the perception that Obama is too liberal, that his patriotism is suspect, that he may be weak on terrorism, the war in Iraq (fill in the blank).
In addition to these weaknesses, which Republicans are already exploiting in congressional races in the several southern states, Obama is, by nearly any standard, woefully inexperienced. Early on in the campaign, when the Iraq war was pretty much front and center, he was able to turn this liability into an asset, winning much applause when he said that George Bush and Clinton have a lot of experience and look where that has got us. True enough, but when push comes to shove, folks who are concerned about security, the war in Iraq, and the other potential horrors that Republicans will have peppered them with throughout the general election, may well think twice before voting for Obama.
Obama’s stance on the gas tax, then, heartening as it is, is small potatoes in comparison to his actions concerning health care, the economy, privacy, and even the war in Iraq (something he has voted to continue to fund since he has been in the US Senate). And it is unlikely that this will change in the final rounds of the race for the Democratic nomination. This is probably the smart, politically savvy thing to do. He remains the odds-on favorite to win the nomination and there are dangers in offering specifics on controversial issues or speaking about the kinds of hard choices that must be made to keep Social Security solvent, or to keep the economy upright.
If Obama continues to be a politician like any other in the general election, though, this, along with the elephants’ portrayal of him as a godless, leftwing, pinko, with less experience than some city councilmen, will spell serious trouble for the Democrats. Obama’s baggage is becoming way too heavy for the Democratic baggage handlers to carry and there is certain to be a lot more before November.
So what happens if the Democrats elect another candidate ripe for a drubbing? Perhaps we can put that free half tank of gas and few extra dollars from the tax rebate to good use and console ourselves for a night in a Motel 6 on the edge of town, with HBO blasting away, and a couple rounds of vibrating massage from the Magic Fingers.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The More Things Change the More they Stay the Same: Media Shennanigans and the 2008 Democratic Race for the Nomination
I feel like I’ve been roused from a Rip van Winkle-like slumber as I write this latest entry, the first in several weeks.
Unlike Rip, though, I don’t find that much has changed. The same wood-headed pundits jabbering and scribblers scribbling the same inanities and dramatizing and hyping the same quotidian garbage as reality scurries away unfettered and, most disturbing, providing absolutely no insight into what’s going on in an historic Democratic race for the nomination and the presidency.
As I lay snoozing, oblivious to everything around me, it wasn’t that quite a lot didn’t happen. There was “Bittergate,” the renaissance of former Weather Underground bomb maker, William Ayers, Obama’s defeat in PA despite weeks of campaigning and a huge advantage in dollars, and even the reemergence of the right reverend pariah, Jeremiah Wright, the crazy uncle that Obama couldn’t keep locked in the attic. To anyone reading this blog though, indeed anyone capable of reading and listening, and thinking at a level just a bit higher than a jellyfish, none of this should come as any surprise…except, that is, to the media, the so-called fourth estate, who just can’t seem to get anything right these days, so concerned is it with entertainment and profit margins.
What remains the same, then, is not only the weakness of Obama as a candidate but the inability of the media to perform even a basic analysis of the candidates and their electability. Obama’s weaknesses, at least as a candidate in the general election, have been apparent from the very beginning--his liberalism, questions about his patriotism, experience, and why, if he is, in fact, a real American…he can’t bowl worth a damn. This is clearly indicated by his poor performances in the states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, and his difficulties in winning over white working class voters. The Democratic nominee will need to do well in these states and with such voters to have a chance at beating McCain.
Anyway, you’d think that the media had been the ones snoozing with all the astonished chest beating, desk thumping, and horrified looks these schlubs exchange as they purport to be shocked by Obama’s seeming dismissal of working class Pennsylvanians; his association with Wright, who it would appear may be the devil himself; and, worst of all, the fact that Obama doesn’t look comfortable lunching on Wonderbread and baloney sandwiches with the Schlitz and gun-rack crowd. “By god,” they thunder, with eyes as wide as folks who have slept for one hundred years, “Obama sure is aloof” and (here you must whisper and look as if aunt Ella just farted at the funeral) and “elitist.” And concerning Obama's patriotism, he has flirting with treason, they cry, because he won’t wear a flag pin on his lapel like the other lemmings. "Oh, woe is us, what kind of new world is this?"
I’ve written for months that this kind of crap—issues that have to do with the skewed way many Americans view such matters of patriotisim, religion, security, and the like—pretty much make Obama unelectable, if not in the Democratic primary, than almost certainly the general election when he will not have the caucuses or the goofy Democratic nominating process to help him, but will need the helping hand of a few good troglodytes or near troglodytes. But, as usual, the media can’t even get the electability issue right. If there are some questions now about this, it either has to do with the fact that HC has gone after Obama in a way more befitting a Republican, or there is a focus on the events undermining Obama as if they are a kind of terrible misfortune, bad luck, or SOL happenstance. Events, that is, that, astonishingly, have little to do with his liberalism, inexperience, or even judgment.
Of course, each of these events glimpsed by the media through a glass darkly is more a function, really, of a greater fundamental weakness, the things that will doom Obama should he win the Democratic nomination. Liberal—yes; inexperienced—yes; soft on terror, the war, and security (at least in many folks minds)? Yes, yes, and yes. As dumb and shortsighted as is recent discussion of Obama’s bowling, comfort with blue collar workers, and his possible radicalism (association with Wright and Ayers), and as crude as these are they point to the even meaner perception and indeed framing of Obama to come in the general election. The Republicans are already beginning to have a field day with him in North Carolina, releasing ads about Obama’s association with Wright that even John McCain claims to find objectionable. There will soon be more ads questioning everything from his belief in god and his patriotism to his willingness to “do battle with terrorists abroad so we don’t have to do it here,” or whatever it is George W. Bush, soccer moms, and soccer dads like to say. And the Democratic race isn’t even over yet.
So while the media continues to grope blindly at the various parts of the elephant, good luck in waiting for them to piece together the whole. It will be far too late then—probably already is—and we will likely have an unelectable candidate that the media has been swearing for months was the candidate to beat all candidates, a true Republican killer, the kind of candidate that sends Republicans scurrying away in fear and makes them reconsider their party affiliation.
Kind of like the war in Iraq and the Bush administration’s spin on it in which the media all too happily acquiesced, even in the puerile belief that we would be greeted with flowers and our “mission accomplished” in weeks instead of years. The media even proudly used the Administration’s term of “embedded” when describing there relationship with the United States forces in Iraq, though“in bed with,” of course would have been much more appropriate, especially with the recent revelations that the media were paying ex-generals and the like to provide expert "analysis" on Iraq which, it turns out, was was actually PR vetted by the Pentagon. Of course by the time the folks in the media finally found their bearings after being enchanted by the likes of Colin Powell, Chalabi, and the and the 4-star PR flak generals, it was too late. Even McCain voiced some criticisms of the war and Bush before many in the media.
For me anyway there is some good news because despite the recent shuteye, I don’t feel like I’ve missed much. The bad news is that we are ever closer to having as our President, John McCain, a tragic continuation of the current President and his policies, something that could have been avoided perhaps if the media were not paid by each flap of the gum, bump in the Nielsen ratings, or bit of spittle flying from Chris Mathews’ mouth but instead rewarded for thinking for a moment or two before blabbering whatever first comes to their febrile minds or performing some analysis or research before putting pen to paper.
This, however, would require looking regularly at presidential campaign history; researching the demographics and voting patterns of the electorate over the last several years; considering how Obama and Clinton are likely to be portrayed and perceived in the general election based on their voting records and past associations; perhaps undertaking a study on in the importance of experience in times when voters are hysterical about their safety and security, and making some connections between these things. This would be a lot to ask, though, in a time when the news must be made palatable with vignettes that would be rejected as too lame by even America’s Funniest Home Videos (just watch Keith Olbermann’s program on MSNBC for a nearly Platonic example of this).
I don’t know about you, but when all is said and done it kind of makes me want to go back to bed.
RIP
Unlike Rip, though, I don’t find that much has changed. The same wood-headed pundits jabbering and scribblers scribbling the same inanities and dramatizing and hyping the same quotidian garbage as reality scurries away unfettered and, most disturbing, providing absolutely no insight into what’s going on in an historic Democratic race for the nomination and the presidency.
As I lay snoozing, oblivious to everything around me, it wasn’t that quite a lot didn’t happen. There was “Bittergate,” the renaissance of former Weather Underground bomb maker, William Ayers, Obama’s defeat in PA despite weeks of campaigning and a huge advantage in dollars, and even the reemergence of the right reverend pariah, Jeremiah Wright, the crazy uncle that Obama couldn’t keep locked in the attic. To anyone reading this blog though, indeed anyone capable of reading and listening, and thinking at a level just a bit higher than a jellyfish, none of this should come as any surprise…except, that is, to the media, the so-called fourth estate, who just can’t seem to get anything right these days, so concerned is it with entertainment and profit margins.
What remains the same, then, is not only the weakness of Obama as a candidate but the inability of the media to perform even a basic analysis of the candidates and their electability. Obama’s weaknesses, at least as a candidate in the general election, have been apparent from the very beginning--his liberalism, questions about his patriotism, experience, and why, if he is, in fact, a real American…he can’t bowl worth a damn. This is clearly indicated by his poor performances in the states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, and his difficulties in winning over white working class voters. The Democratic nominee will need to do well in these states and with such voters to have a chance at beating McCain.
Anyway, you’d think that the media had been the ones snoozing with all the astonished chest beating, desk thumping, and horrified looks these schlubs exchange as they purport to be shocked by Obama’s seeming dismissal of working class Pennsylvanians; his association with Wright, who it would appear may be the devil himself; and, worst of all, the fact that Obama doesn’t look comfortable lunching on Wonderbread and baloney sandwiches with the Schlitz and gun-rack crowd. “By god,” they thunder, with eyes as wide as folks who have slept for one hundred years, “Obama sure is aloof” and (here you must whisper and look as if aunt Ella just farted at the funeral) and “elitist.” And concerning Obama's patriotism, he has flirting with treason, they cry, because he won’t wear a flag pin on his lapel like the other lemmings. "Oh, woe is us, what kind of new world is this?"
I’ve written for months that this kind of crap—issues that have to do with the skewed way many Americans view such matters of patriotisim, religion, security, and the like—pretty much make Obama unelectable, if not in the Democratic primary, than almost certainly the general election when he will not have the caucuses or the goofy Democratic nominating process to help him, but will need the helping hand of a few good troglodytes or near troglodytes. But, as usual, the media can’t even get the electability issue right. If there are some questions now about this, it either has to do with the fact that HC has gone after Obama in a way more befitting a Republican, or there is a focus on the events undermining Obama as if they are a kind of terrible misfortune, bad luck, or SOL happenstance. Events, that is, that, astonishingly, have little to do with his liberalism, inexperience, or even judgment.
Of course, each of these events glimpsed by the media through a glass darkly is more a function, really, of a greater fundamental weakness, the things that will doom Obama should he win the Democratic nomination. Liberal—yes; inexperienced—yes; soft on terror, the war, and security (at least in many folks minds)? Yes, yes, and yes. As dumb and shortsighted as is recent discussion of Obama’s bowling, comfort with blue collar workers, and his possible radicalism (association with Wright and Ayers), and as crude as these are they point to the even meaner perception and indeed framing of Obama to come in the general election. The Republicans are already beginning to have a field day with him in North Carolina, releasing ads about Obama’s association with Wright that even John McCain claims to find objectionable. There will soon be more ads questioning everything from his belief in god and his patriotism to his willingness to “do battle with terrorists abroad so we don’t have to do it here,” or whatever it is George W. Bush, soccer moms, and soccer dads like to say. And the Democratic race isn’t even over yet.
So while the media continues to grope blindly at the various parts of the elephant, good luck in waiting for them to piece together the whole. It will be far too late then—probably already is—and we will likely have an unelectable candidate that the media has been swearing for months was the candidate to beat all candidates, a true Republican killer, the kind of candidate that sends Republicans scurrying away in fear and makes them reconsider their party affiliation.
Kind of like the war in Iraq and the Bush administration’s spin on it in which the media all too happily acquiesced, even in the puerile belief that we would be greeted with flowers and our “mission accomplished” in weeks instead of years. The media even proudly used the Administration’s term of “embedded” when describing there relationship with the United States forces in Iraq, though“in bed with,” of course would have been much more appropriate, especially with the recent revelations that the media were paying ex-generals and the like to provide expert "analysis" on Iraq which, it turns out, was was actually PR vetted by the Pentagon. Of course by the time the folks in the media finally found their bearings after being enchanted by the likes of Colin Powell, Chalabi, and the and the 4-star PR flak generals, it was too late. Even McCain voiced some criticisms of the war and Bush before many in the media.
For me anyway there is some good news because despite the recent shuteye, I don’t feel like I’ve missed much. The bad news is that we are ever closer to having as our President, John McCain, a tragic continuation of the current President and his policies, something that could have been avoided perhaps if the media were not paid by each flap of the gum, bump in the Nielsen ratings, or bit of spittle flying from Chris Mathews’ mouth but instead rewarded for thinking for a moment or two before blabbering whatever first comes to their febrile minds or performing some analysis or research before putting pen to paper.
This, however, would require looking regularly at presidential campaign history; researching the demographics and voting patterns of the electorate over the last several years; considering how Obama and Clinton are likely to be portrayed and perceived in the general election based on their voting records and past associations; perhaps undertaking a study on in the importance of experience in times when voters are hysterical about their safety and security, and making some connections between these things. This would be a lot to ask, though, in a time when the news must be made palatable with vignettes that would be rejected as too lame by even America’s Funniest Home Videos (just watch Keith Olbermann’s program on MSNBC for a nearly Platonic example of this).
I don’t know about you, but when all is said and done it kind of makes me want to go back to bed.
RIP
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
A Campaign Like No Other: Barack Obama, Race, and the Democratic Primary
Superdelegates should not overturn the pledged delegates. At least that is what Obama said almost as soon as the final Super Tuesday delegate tallies were in, on February 5th, putting the superdelegates on notice that should they go for HC even if she were behind in this measure, there could be problems.
This argument is an incredible one for several reasons. First, it shows that from a very early stage Obama knew that this would be a horse race, and second, and most interestingly, it indicates that Obama knew from the very beginning that race would play a huge role and not in the way most folks expected.
What is at least as interesting is the attention that Obama’s argument about the role of the superdelegates has gotten from the media. There isn’t a television news program or newspaper that hasn’t discussed how unfair it would be or how it would be courting disaster for the nomination to be decided by the superdelegates should Obama be ahead in pledged delegates but still not have enough to reach the magic number needed for nomination. Obama has known since Super Tuesday, when someone “leaked” what thus far have been incredibly accurate and detailed projections from the Obama campaign showing that he would likely have more pledged delegates at the conclusion of the campaign.
But the projections also indicated--publicized to Obama's supporters really--that he would not have enough delegates to win outright and that the nomination would likely be decided by the superdelegates. Linking the superdelegate vote to the total pledged delegate count, and emphasizing early on to his supporters that it would be unfair for the superdelegates to do anything else, was the strategy to overcome the fact that though he would have a slight lead in pledged delegates, Clinton would likely have the overall lead based on pledged delegates and superdelegates. His argument, of course, is tailored exactly to his situation and the media has swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
What isn’t clear, is why other alternatives or other bases for the superdelegates’ votes haven’t been considered by the media. Why, for example, should the superdelegates vote based on the number of total pledged delegates instead of, say, with the voters in the state in which they live? Or if not that, why not vote based on the winner of the popular vote? And what about the role of superdelegates in the first place—aren’t they supposed to exercise their judgment as they see fit? Some pretty high profile Democratic pols, like Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, claim to have the same understanding of the superdelegates’ role as Obama but, as will become clear, the reason they might support this argument, even if they don’t believe it, is pretty apparent.
With any of the alternatives Clinton would likely get most of the superdelegates. If the superdelegates were to vote based on the vote of the state in which they reside, for example, HC would get all the superdelegates from California, New York, and Ohio. Obama would get the superdelegates from the states he won—Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. And if superdelegates were bound by the popular vote? HC is behind in this now, but may be ahead in this number when the primary is over. Obama wouldn’t do so well either if the superdelegates used as their main criterion who would be more electable in November. At the very least all of these are as reasonable as Obama’s suggestion. So while you can’t blame Obama for making this argument, you can certainly ask why the media hasn’t questioned its reasonableness or spent much time considering the alternatives.
Obama has been navigating a razor’s edge deftly throughout the primary: minimizing all overt signs of race, and racial difference in his speeches to attract white voters while having both a hypersensitive understanding of how it will play out in the campaign and a high octane strategy to exploit this. Obama and his campaign have exploited this issue by using its incredible bottom-to-top organization to target and organize precincts and caucuses with large black populations, knowing full well that the Democratic Party cannot afford to alienate perhaps the most crucial portion of its base by being perceived as denying the election to Obama via the party elite, the superdelegates.
Looking back now at the Obama campaign’s nearly dead-on predictions of the delegate count over the course of the campaign which were released just after Super Tuesday, it is clear that it was Obama’s intention all along to make race a fundamental aspect of his campaign, both by targeting blacks in a way never done before, by amassing slightly more delegates than Clinton, and, because neither he nor Clinton could win without them, browbeating the superdelegates to go with the candidate ahead in the delegate count. Obama’s campaign was likely never built to win outright but rather (1) to establish and maintain a mathematical lead in the pledged delegates and then (2) strong arm the superdelegates to vote for him or risk alienating black voters. (For the February 7 Obama campaign projections see politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html).
Obama’s construction concerning the superdelegates is premised on his popularity with blacks. As soon as Obama won in Iowa, that is, as soon as he was able to show that whites would vote for him in significant numbers, his campaign could be certain that blacks would flock to him. And they did, as evidenced by South Carolina, the first primary with a significant black vote. He won nearly 80 percent of blacks and since that early primary has continued to win them at between 80 and 90 percent. It is hard to remember another time when such an important single Democratic constituency has voted in such numbers and with such passion for a candidate. It is this support, of course, which Obama hoped to receive and knew he had to receive for his pledged delegate-superdelegate strategy to work.
Once it was clear that blacks recognized him as a viable candidate, he could play his trump card—linking the superdelegates to the pledged delegates--and introduce to his fervent supporters the idea that it would be unfair in the extreme if the superdelegates were to decide the race in favor of Clinton when she did not lead in pledged delegates. And, as both a superdelegate and Speaker of House, Nancy Pelosi, looking for gains in the House, knows better than anyone how disastrous it would be if blacks don't vote in November. This, no doubt, is why she shares Obama's understanding of the superdelegates. Had both Democratic candidates been white, or both candidates black, a call to link the superdelegates to pledged delegate totals likely would have gotten little mileage from the press, Pelosi, or anyone else for that matter.
This has turned out to be a brilliant strategy for the Democratic primary and Obama may well ride it all the way through and be the party’s nominee. It won’t be much use in the general election, I suspect, but that’s another story. The real story of the primary is Obama’s awareness, navigation, and exploitation of race. It has been deft, nearly opaque, and is on the verge of making him the party’s nominee. It is difficult to fault him for campaigning in this way--that is what it is all about, motivate and get constituents to turn out, get the media to act on your behalf, and seize control, if possible, of the party’s tortuous nominating process.
It is one of politics’ great ironies, though, that Obama, whose campaign largely rests on his promise of drawing people together, transforming politics as usual, and looking beyond race has focused on and exploited the issue of race throughout the campaign in a way that hasn’t yet come fully to light. And it is more than a little disturbing that an important part of that campaign relies on the echoes of the injustices suffered by blacks as a result of slavery, Jim Crow, and all the other indignities to which blacks have been subject in this country, not the least of which is the idea that the nomination of the candidate so many blacks feel so passionately about could be snatched away from them by the white establishment via the superdelegates and the DNC.
That is exactly what Obama has done, though, and it is an important part of why he is likely to win the nomination.
This argument is an incredible one for several reasons. First, it shows that from a very early stage Obama knew that this would be a horse race, and second, and most interestingly, it indicates that Obama knew from the very beginning that race would play a huge role and not in the way most folks expected.
What is at least as interesting is the attention that Obama’s argument about the role of the superdelegates has gotten from the media. There isn’t a television news program or newspaper that hasn’t discussed how unfair it would be or how it would be courting disaster for the nomination to be decided by the superdelegates should Obama be ahead in pledged delegates but still not have enough to reach the magic number needed for nomination. Obama has known since Super Tuesday, when someone “leaked” what thus far have been incredibly accurate and detailed projections from the Obama campaign showing that he would likely have more pledged delegates at the conclusion of the campaign.
But the projections also indicated--publicized to Obama's supporters really--that he would not have enough delegates to win outright and that the nomination would likely be decided by the superdelegates. Linking the superdelegate vote to the total pledged delegate count, and emphasizing early on to his supporters that it would be unfair for the superdelegates to do anything else, was the strategy to overcome the fact that though he would have a slight lead in pledged delegates, Clinton would likely have the overall lead based on pledged delegates and superdelegates. His argument, of course, is tailored exactly to his situation and the media has swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
What isn’t clear, is why other alternatives or other bases for the superdelegates’ votes haven’t been considered by the media. Why, for example, should the superdelegates vote based on the number of total pledged delegates instead of, say, with the voters in the state in which they live? Or if not that, why not vote based on the winner of the popular vote? And what about the role of superdelegates in the first place—aren’t they supposed to exercise their judgment as they see fit? Some pretty high profile Democratic pols, like Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, claim to have the same understanding of the superdelegates’ role as Obama but, as will become clear, the reason they might support this argument, even if they don’t believe it, is pretty apparent.
With any of the alternatives Clinton would likely get most of the superdelegates. If the superdelegates were to vote based on the vote of the state in which they reside, for example, HC would get all the superdelegates from California, New York, and Ohio. Obama would get the superdelegates from the states he won—Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. And if superdelegates were bound by the popular vote? HC is behind in this now, but may be ahead in this number when the primary is over. Obama wouldn’t do so well either if the superdelegates used as their main criterion who would be more electable in November. At the very least all of these are as reasonable as Obama’s suggestion. So while you can’t blame Obama for making this argument, you can certainly ask why the media hasn’t questioned its reasonableness or spent much time considering the alternatives.
Obama has been navigating a razor’s edge deftly throughout the primary: minimizing all overt signs of race, and racial difference in his speeches to attract white voters while having both a hypersensitive understanding of how it will play out in the campaign and a high octane strategy to exploit this. Obama and his campaign have exploited this issue by using its incredible bottom-to-top organization to target and organize precincts and caucuses with large black populations, knowing full well that the Democratic Party cannot afford to alienate perhaps the most crucial portion of its base by being perceived as denying the election to Obama via the party elite, the superdelegates.
Looking back now at the Obama campaign’s nearly dead-on predictions of the delegate count over the course of the campaign which were released just after Super Tuesday, it is clear that it was Obama’s intention all along to make race a fundamental aspect of his campaign, both by targeting blacks in a way never done before, by amassing slightly more delegates than Clinton, and, because neither he nor Clinton could win without them, browbeating the superdelegates to go with the candidate ahead in the delegate count. Obama’s campaign was likely never built to win outright but rather (1) to establish and maintain a mathematical lead in the pledged delegates and then (2) strong arm the superdelegates to vote for him or risk alienating black voters. (For the February 7 Obama campaign projections see politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html).
Obama’s construction concerning the superdelegates is premised on his popularity with blacks. As soon as Obama won in Iowa, that is, as soon as he was able to show that whites would vote for him in significant numbers, his campaign could be certain that blacks would flock to him. And they did, as evidenced by South Carolina, the first primary with a significant black vote. He won nearly 80 percent of blacks and since that early primary has continued to win them at between 80 and 90 percent. It is hard to remember another time when such an important single Democratic constituency has voted in such numbers and with such passion for a candidate. It is this support, of course, which Obama hoped to receive and knew he had to receive for his pledged delegate-superdelegate strategy to work.
Once it was clear that blacks recognized him as a viable candidate, he could play his trump card—linking the superdelegates to the pledged delegates--and introduce to his fervent supporters the idea that it would be unfair in the extreme if the superdelegates were to decide the race in favor of Clinton when she did not lead in pledged delegates. And, as both a superdelegate and Speaker of House, Nancy Pelosi, looking for gains in the House, knows better than anyone how disastrous it would be if blacks don't vote in November. This, no doubt, is why she shares Obama's understanding of the superdelegates. Had both Democratic candidates been white, or both candidates black, a call to link the superdelegates to pledged delegate totals likely would have gotten little mileage from the press, Pelosi, or anyone else for that matter.
This has turned out to be a brilliant strategy for the Democratic primary and Obama may well ride it all the way through and be the party’s nominee. It won’t be much use in the general election, I suspect, but that’s another story. The real story of the primary is Obama’s awareness, navigation, and exploitation of race. It has been deft, nearly opaque, and is on the verge of making him the party’s nominee. It is difficult to fault him for campaigning in this way--that is what it is all about, motivate and get constituents to turn out, get the media to act on your behalf, and seize control, if possible, of the party’s tortuous nominating process.
It is one of politics’ great ironies, though, that Obama, whose campaign largely rests on his promise of drawing people together, transforming politics as usual, and looking beyond race has focused on and exploited the issue of race throughout the campaign in a way that hasn’t yet come fully to light. And it is more than a little disturbing that an important part of that campaign relies on the echoes of the injustices suffered by blacks as a result of slavery, Jim Crow, and all the other indignities to which blacks have been subject in this country, not the least of which is the idea that the nomination of the candidate so many blacks feel so passionately about could be snatched away from them by the white establishment via the superdelegates and the DNC.
That is exactly what Obama has done, though, and it is an important part of why he is likely to win the nomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)