For better or for worse, the Democrats found a winning strategy when Bill Clinton used the Democratic Leadership Council, and issues such as the death penalty and welfare reform, which up to that point pretty much belonged to Republicans, to become the first two-term President since FDR.
Clinton’s legacy will likely be about how he changed the philosophical framework of the Democratic Party, in order to make it viable again, after the fundamental shift in allegiance that occurred after the civil rights and voting rights Acts in the 1960s. As necessary as both of these were in laying the groundwork for equality and justice to black Americans, they had the effect of driving blue dog Democrats into the arms of Republicans. Until Clinton, the Democrats did not have a clue about how to get such voters back from the GOP’s unsavory embrace.
Democratic fortunes, after Bill Clinton (ABC), have been not been so good though and, in fact, congressional Democrats even during Clinton’s tenure took a drubbing so severe when Newt Gingrich and company swept them from office in the 1994 elections, that they have never fully recovered although they currently have small majorities in both the House and the Senate.
The recent victories of Democrats in the three special elections held in Republican districts, though, have Democrats positively giddy at their prospects in the congressional and presidential races in the fall and, likewise, have Republicans wringing their hands in despair.
In order to win these districts, Democrats took a page out of the Clinton book, putting up candidates that were nearly as conservative in most respects as the Republicans they were running against. Most recently, in the election in Mississippi, earlier this month, the Democrat, Travis Childers, was all but indistinguishable from his opponent, Greg Davis, when campaigning against abortion, indicating his adoration of guns, and, in general, giving little reason for Republicans to think he’d do much different than his opponent. It was the same for socially conservative, anti-abortion Dan Cazayoux in his victory in Louisiana over Woody Jenkins, who also won his election in May, and fiscal conservative Bill Foster’s March win over former Speaker of the US House, Dennis Hastert, in Illinois.
Democrats took even more away from these victories, though, because the Republicans poured money into all three elections and used much of it on creating ads attempting to link Obama and House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to the Democratic candidates. Obama’s association with Wright was featured prominently in some of the ads and the association certainly believed by the Republicans to be not only political poison to Obama but to the House candidates as well. Because the Democrats won, and because many believed this to be not only a kind of referendum on Obama, but a measure of how he will fare with more conservative voters in the general election, the victories have taken on great meaning.
Too much meaning, probably. These ads and, more generally, the attempt to link Obama to these conservative Democrats, didn’t work because the candidates were well known to voters and the idea that they shared much in common with Obama was simply not taken seriously. The Democratic candidates themselves certainly did not make either Obama or Pelosi the centerpieces of their campaigns and, indeed, distanced themselves from liberal to moderate Democrats by generally emphasizing their conservative positions on guns, abortion, and taxes.
In fact, Obama actually bucks the trend of the more conservative Democrat that has proven so successful. His association with reverend Jeremiah Wright, who is perceived rightly or wrongly by many as a radical, his fleeting association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers, and his positions on everything from negotiating with countries like Cuba without any preconditions to questions about where he stands on gun rights, put him, for many, nearer on the political spectrum to George McGovern than Bill Clinton or, to be sure, the conservative congressmen recently elected.
Although this rightward shift of the Party is troubling in many ways (the shift to supporting the death penalty which has pretty much become a litmus test for electability is especially repugnant), it is difficult to argue that it is not a necessary one. The liberal candidates that Democrats have frequently produced after Kennedy have simply been out of step with too many voters.
Not all is lost, however. Despite the shift, Democrats continue to have significant differences with Republicans. If you don’t think the differences are that large, just ask the families of the thousands of Americans killed in Iraq, or the Iraqi families who lost far more lives and had their lives turned up-side-down by a war that was against the wrong enemy, bungled terribly in its prosecution, and to which little or no thought was given to monetary costs or even an exit strategy.
In addition, despite the conservative shift, the Party framework should help ensure that even conservative Democrats will vote with their more moderate colleagues. Many Republicans, for example, were strongly against the new Medicare prescription drug benefit legislation that was passed in 2003 but changed their votes so as to not break ranks with the Party. Democrats, even very conservative ones, will be no different.
Obama is clearly an exception to the moderate-to-conservative trends represented by Bill Clinton and, most recently, the victorious Democrats in the House elections.
And if he is the Party’s nominee, the question will be whether Obama’s charisma and ability to turn out voters will be enough to make his fate an exception to that of previous liberal Democratic nominees.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The Appalachian Strategy: Jim Webb, The Scots-Irish, and the Road to the White House
Last night, when interviewed by Keith Olbermann, the presumptive Obama press secretary and currently resident at the Obama Channel, Virginia senator, Jim Webb, took the opportunity to shamelessly campaign for the Democrats' second slot. When Olbermann flirted with him about the VP, Webb turned nearly as red as a school girl, and said coquettishly some sweet nothings about Obama before launching into a discussion about how Obama needed to shore up his support of the dobro-playing, Hatfield-and- McCoy-feuding Scots-Irish of Appalachia, heretofore known, I guess, as the white working class.
Webb went on to point out the obvious and state that these are exactly the voters the Democratic nominee will need to work so assiduously to garner and, by the way, Keith, I just happened to write a Wall Street Journal article and a book about these very folks and their desires in 2004. (The article, Secret GOP Weapon: The Scots-Irish Vote, is available at http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id+=110005798. His book is entitled Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America)
I haven’t read the book, but the article couldn’t be more tailored to appealing to Obama if it had been written since Obama’s whuppings in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In the article, Webb basically argues that the Scots-Irish in states from Tennessee to Ohio and Pennsylvania have been key constituencies for the GOP, as Reagan Democrats, and as overwhelming supporters of the “Current Occupant,” as Garrison Keiller likes to call G.W. Bush. They are the GOP’s “secret weapon,” Webb writes, and as such, Democrats need to figure out what it is they want so they can get their Scots-Irish arse votes to vote for a Democrat, or something like that. And guess, of course, who is the expert on how these people think?
I am sure the book is worth a read even if the National Review called it one of the best political books of 2004.
Webb would be a very good VP choice but, for its worth, and for the reasons I outlined yesterday, HC would be better yet. The two together would be certain to expand turnouts, and HC is showing some real clout with exactly the constituency Webb writes about. The big question, I guess, is whether these voters were voting for her or against Obama, but certainly her perception as a fighter and her near-metamorphosis into a populist, Methodist daughter of the working class, appears to have struck a chord. Webb just can’t match her star power or gravitas (or the spectacle of Bill Clinton running around on the scene).
Bill Clinton notwithstanding, to people like the Boston Herald’s, Mike Barnicle, who also held forth on the Obama Channel last night saying that HC, as VP, would be the wrong choice for Obama because she would undermine his whole shtick (my word) of transformation and change, I can only say this argument doesn’t make a lot of sense, Mike. Hillary Clinton’s gender alone represents big time change for women and men, alike, if you haven’t noticed. If you had said you were concerned that it might be too much for the poor voting public to contemplate both a black and a woman on the same ticket, at least that would have made some sense (in addition to being racist and misogynistic, according to some sensitive types).
It will be interesting to see just what Barnicle (and presumably others who think that HC just isn’t hip enough for Obama) will consider as an acceptable VP candidate, though my guess is that this will look suspiciously like Webb, a white male with a military background, from a southern or swing state, and a timely book about the Scots-Irish.
Webb went on to point out the obvious and state that these are exactly the voters the Democratic nominee will need to work so assiduously to garner and, by the way, Keith, I just happened to write a Wall Street Journal article and a book about these very folks and their desires in 2004. (The article, Secret GOP Weapon: The Scots-Irish Vote, is available at http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id+=110005798. His book is entitled Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America)
I haven’t read the book, but the article couldn’t be more tailored to appealing to Obama if it had been written since Obama’s whuppings in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In the article, Webb basically argues that the Scots-Irish in states from Tennessee to Ohio and Pennsylvania have been key constituencies for the GOP, as Reagan Democrats, and as overwhelming supporters of the “Current Occupant,” as Garrison Keiller likes to call G.W. Bush. They are the GOP’s “secret weapon,” Webb writes, and as such, Democrats need to figure out what it is they want so they can get their Scots-Irish arse votes to vote for a Democrat, or something like that. And guess, of course, who is the expert on how these people think?
I am sure the book is worth a read even if the National Review called it one of the best political books of 2004.
Webb would be a very good VP choice but, for its worth, and for the reasons I outlined yesterday, HC would be better yet. The two together would be certain to expand turnouts, and HC is showing some real clout with exactly the constituency Webb writes about. The big question, I guess, is whether these voters were voting for her or against Obama, but certainly her perception as a fighter and her near-metamorphosis into a populist, Methodist daughter of the working class, appears to have struck a chord. Webb just can’t match her star power or gravitas (or the spectacle of Bill Clinton running around on the scene).
Bill Clinton notwithstanding, to people like the Boston Herald’s, Mike Barnicle, who also held forth on the Obama Channel last night saying that HC, as VP, would be the wrong choice for Obama because she would undermine his whole shtick (my word) of transformation and change, I can only say this argument doesn’t make a lot of sense, Mike. Hillary Clinton’s gender alone represents big time change for women and men, alike, if you haven’t noticed. If you had said you were concerned that it might be too much for the poor voting public to contemplate both a black and a woman on the same ticket, at least that would have made some sense (in addition to being racist and misogynistic, according to some sensitive types).
It will be interesting to see just what Barnicle (and presumably others who think that HC just isn’t hip enough for Obama) will consider as an acceptable VP candidate, though my guess is that this will look suspiciously like Webb, a white male with a military background, from a southern or swing state, and a timely book about the Scots-Irish.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
General Election 2008: Obama/Clinton vs. McCain/Bush
While I believe it isn’t very likely under any circumstances that Barack Obama will be elected this country’s next president, I think his only real chance to win, should he be the Democratic Party’s nominee, would be if he could get Hillary Clinton to be his second-in-command.
Vice Presidents generally play little or no role in putting a candidate over the top, unless perhaps the VP choice is immensely popular and from a crucial swing state (JFK, LBJ and Texas come to mind when Kennedy won Texas by 46,000 votes and defeated Nixon in 1960 by the slimmest of margins).
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a VP who could help Obama’s chances immensely, across the board. She’s beaten him in nearly all the big states and swing states and did so by appealing to exactly those voters Obama has the most trouble with—white working class voters, Hispanics, and older voters.
Clinton has negatives to be sure, and is hated in some quarters as much or more than her husband (who nonetheless is the first Democrat since FDR to be elected to two terms), but she has a ton of support and has earned a lot of admiration and even new voters (many of these white males, a real problem for her in the past) as she battles Obama to the very end. Although its part bluster and media hype, there is no question that HC has established herself as a candidate that is perceived as tough as nails in addition to being smart and generally somewhere near the center of the Party on most of the issues. As a result, a lot of the support she is now receiving is likely to transfer to the general election, even with Obama at the head of the ticket.
Even if some of the white working class voters she got in places like West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania go over to McCain, as they are sure to do, Clinton is in the best position of any possible VP candidate, including someone like Jim Webb of Virginia, to put all of these key states, with possibly the exception of West Virginia, into play.
Also, although there are those who will say that is ludicrous to not immediately include California and New York in Obama’s column, I am not so sure of this. McCain is just the kind of candidate who can appeal to important constituencies in these states. Hillary Clinton as VP will all but ensure that Jews in New York or Hispanics in California who appear to be skittish of Obama will help deliver both states.
Politicians have very thick skins when it comes to winning, so Obama should have no trouble choosing Clinton if he believes it is more likely to help him beat McCain. His staff have proven thus far to be both pragmatic in finding and targeting constituencies likely to vote for Obama and brilliant in their strategies to maximize votes through caucuses and other twists of the labyrinthine Democratic nominating process, so my guess is they are seriously considering pursuing Clinton as soon as it is appropriate to do so. With Clinton getting as much support and generating as much enthusiasm as Obama, it just doesn’t make sense to let all the air out of this exciting campaign by choosing as his VP candidate some wan, slightly right of center greybeard, as many are suggesting Obama do.
But what about Clinton, would she even take the VP, if offered? There are possible pitfalls if the duo were to be shellacked in November, though any harm from this would adhere much more to Obama than Clinton. Besides, as tone-deaf as Clinton can be at times, she can’t miss the Wagnerian blast of history-in-the-making that would sound should there be an Obama/Clinton ticket.
Even if there is an Obama/Clinton ticket, I’ll still be grousing about electability and fuming at various injustices both real and otherwise. But right now just the thought of Obama choosing Clinton as his running mate and Clinton accepting is making my keyboard chatter with excitement at the prospects.
There isn’t anyone who will help Obama more and no matter who McCain chooses as his VP, he or she will not have the potential to help him in the way Clinton can help Obama.
Besides, isn’t it a McCain/Bush ticket anyway?
Vice Presidents generally play little or no role in putting a candidate over the top, unless perhaps the VP choice is immensely popular and from a crucial swing state (JFK, LBJ and Texas come to mind when Kennedy won Texas by 46,000 votes and defeated Nixon in 1960 by the slimmest of margins).
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a VP who could help Obama’s chances immensely, across the board. She’s beaten him in nearly all the big states and swing states and did so by appealing to exactly those voters Obama has the most trouble with—white working class voters, Hispanics, and older voters.
Clinton has negatives to be sure, and is hated in some quarters as much or more than her husband (who nonetheless is the first Democrat since FDR to be elected to two terms), but she has a ton of support and has earned a lot of admiration and even new voters (many of these white males, a real problem for her in the past) as she battles Obama to the very end. Although its part bluster and media hype, there is no question that HC has established herself as a candidate that is perceived as tough as nails in addition to being smart and generally somewhere near the center of the Party on most of the issues. As a result, a lot of the support she is now receiving is likely to transfer to the general election, even with Obama at the head of the ticket.
Even if some of the white working class voters she got in places like West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania go over to McCain, as they are sure to do, Clinton is in the best position of any possible VP candidate, including someone like Jim Webb of Virginia, to put all of these key states, with possibly the exception of West Virginia, into play.
Also, although there are those who will say that is ludicrous to not immediately include California and New York in Obama’s column, I am not so sure of this. McCain is just the kind of candidate who can appeal to important constituencies in these states. Hillary Clinton as VP will all but ensure that Jews in New York or Hispanics in California who appear to be skittish of Obama will help deliver both states.
Politicians have very thick skins when it comes to winning, so Obama should have no trouble choosing Clinton if he believes it is more likely to help him beat McCain. His staff have proven thus far to be both pragmatic in finding and targeting constituencies likely to vote for Obama and brilliant in their strategies to maximize votes through caucuses and other twists of the labyrinthine Democratic nominating process, so my guess is they are seriously considering pursuing Clinton as soon as it is appropriate to do so. With Clinton getting as much support and generating as much enthusiasm as Obama, it just doesn’t make sense to let all the air out of this exciting campaign by choosing as his VP candidate some wan, slightly right of center greybeard, as many are suggesting Obama do.
But what about Clinton, would she even take the VP, if offered? There are possible pitfalls if the duo were to be shellacked in November, though any harm from this would adhere much more to Obama than Clinton. Besides, as tone-deaf as Clinton can be at times, she can’t miss the Wagnerian blast of history-in-the-making that would sound should there be an Obama/Clinton ticket.
Even if there is an Obama/Clinton ticket, I’ll still be grousing about electability and fuming at various injustices both real and otherwise. But right now just the thought of Obama choosing Clinton as his running mate and Clinton accepting is making my keyboard chatter with excitement at the prospects.
There isn’t anyone who will help Obama more and no matter who McCain chooses as his VP, he or she will not have the potential to help him in the way Clinton can help Obama.
Besides, isn’t it a McCain/Bush ticket anyway?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Let Them Eat Hamburgers: John McCain's Health Care Plan
Incredible as it may seem, one of John McCain’s economic advisors, Tom Miller, said at a health forum yesterday, that the Democratic candidates were wrong for not making, in their health care plans, Americans with pre-existing health conditions pay more for their premiums. Americans, he said, who should have known better than to “pull up to the McDonald’s two times a day” (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hbnews-000002878702).
I’m not sure what Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s surrogates, who were also at the forum, said in response to this outrage but whatever it was it couldn’t possibly have been strong enough.
It’s simply astounding that some flak with gold-plated health insurance who likely as not, given McCain’s track record, is a lobbyist for the very private insurance companies that would stand to gain from McCain’s largesse at the expense of sick Americans, would treat sick Americans so dismissively. This is a fine example of the Republicans in action, though, and clear indication that McCain’s health plan, like George Bush’s, consists of doing everything to privatize health care in this country, get money into the pockets of insurers, and cede any responsibility on the part of the government by cynically putting the onus on personal responsibility, Republican code for “you’re on your own, Bub, we got a war in Iraq to fight and it’s costing us trillions.”
And so what if some of these people are clinging to their hamburgers, along with their guns and religion? After eight years of Bush and the prospects of possibly another eight years of someone just like him, the idea of drowning one’s sorrows in a swimming pool of fat and a mountain of donuts is at least as comforting as these other things.
Neither McCain nor his flunky, Miller, know anything about health care as evidenced by the elements of McCain’s so-called plan or Miller’s asinine comments. If they did, and they genuinely wanted to both bring down health care costs and increase Americans’ access to health care they would create, as both Democratic candidates are suggesting, a significantly larger pool of insured Americans that includes even the sickest ones, and prohibit profit-driven companies from charging them higher premiums. This would spread the overall risk, lower premiums by ensuring that sicker Americans don’t get even sicker, and that a smaller percentage of insured does not end up paying all costs for those with pre-existing conditions because such folks can’t afford to pay the premiums.
McCain admits he knows nothing about economics and his ignorance about healthcare is just as expansive. Unfortunately, in the United States, economics and health care cross paths in a big way, with federal spending on health care making up nearly about 21 percent of all federal spending and totaling a whopping $676 billion (2006, OMB figures). That McCain could be so ignorant both issues should disqualify him from serving in the Senate, let alone from competing for the highest office in the land.
If anyone read this blog, now is the time I would call for all red-blooded Americans to send their hamburgers and unpaid health to Messieurs McCain and Miller. And as much as I would like to see this, it is probably more reasonable to send McCain a letter, fax, or phone him at the address/phone listed at the end of this entry expressing your outrage that someone representing him could flippantly reduce this nation’s healthcare problems to a couple of hamburgers. If you do write McCain, tell him that you demand Miller be fired and, most important, that McCain come up with a health care plan that will do more for sick Americans than the companies that would insure them.
As the hamburger episode illustrates, if McCain is elected we can look forward to his administration working to line the pockets of insurers and other private companies, continuing Bush’s sad legacy of dismantling fee-for-service Medicare, and doing everything he can to siphon funding from crucial domestic programs such as health care so that he can squander it in Iraq.
Is there anyone who really believes that this would be best for the country?
Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes. So it will be up to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, to do something Democrats haven’t had a lot of success with in recent elections, and make crystal clear to voters that McCain, Miller, and Republican Party, in general, don’t give a damn about them and whether they can pay the mortgage, have to work two jobs to just get by or, indeed, whether they have a home or not, and that when Americans are in need of health care Republicans are likely to say “let them eat hamburgers.”
Here’s McCain’s address:
The Honorable John McCain
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-2235Fax: 202-228-2862
I’m not sure what Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s surrogates, who were also at the forum, said in response to this outrage but whatever it was it couldn’t possibly have been strong enough.
It’s simply astounding that some flak with gold-plated health insurance who likely as not, given McCain’s track record, is a lobbyist for the very private insurance companies that would stand to gain from McCain’s largesse at the expense of sick Americans, would treat sick Americans so dismissively. This is a fine example of the Republicans in action, though, and clear indication that McCain’s health plan, like George Bush’s, consists of doing everything to privatize health care in this country, get money into the pockets of insurers, and cede any responsibility on the part of the government by cynically putting the onus on personal responsibility, Republican code for “you’re on your own, Bub, we got a war in Iraq to fight and it’s costing us trillions.”
And so what if some of these people are clinging to their hamburgers, along with their guns and religion? After eight years of Bush and the prospects of possibly another eight years of someone just like him, the idea of drowning one’s sorrows in a swimming pool of fat and a mountain of donuts is at least as comforting as these other things.
Neither McCain nor his flunky, Miller, know anything about health care as evidenced by the elements of McCain’s so-called plan or Miller’s asinine comments. If they did, and they genuinely wanted to both bring down health care costs and increase Americans’ access to health care they would create, as both Democratic candidates are suggesting, a significantly larger pool of insured Americans that includes even the sickest ones, and prohibit profit-driven companies from charging them higher premiums. This would spread the overall risk, lower premiums by ensuring that sicker Americans don’t get even sicker, and that a smaller percentage of insured does not end up paying all costs for those with pre-existing conditions because such folks can’t afford to pay the premiums.
McCain admits he knows nothing about economics and his ignorance about healthcare is just as expansive. Unfortunately, in the United States, economics and health care cross paths in a big way, with federal spending on health care making up nearly about 21 percent of all federal spending and totaling a whopping $676 billion (2006, OMB figures). That McCain could be so ignorant both issues should disqualify him from serving in the Senate, let alone from competing for the highest office in the land.
If anyone read this blog, now is the time I would call for all red-blooded Americans to send their hamburgers and unpaid health to Messieurs McCain and Miller. And as much as I would like to see this, it is probably more reasonable to send McCain a letter, fax, or phone him at the address/phone listed at the end of this entry expressing your outrage that someone representing him could flippantly reduce this nation’s healthcare problems to a couple of hamburgers. If you do write McCain, tell him that you demand Miller be fired and, most important, that McCain come up with a health care plan that will do more for sick Americans than the companies that would insure them.
As the hamburger episode illustrates, if McCain is elected we can look forward to his administration working to line the pockets of insurers and other private companies, continuing Bush’s sad legacy of dismantling fee-for-service Medicare, and doing everything he can to siphon funding from crucial domestic programs such as health care so that he can squander it in Iraq.
Is there anyone who really believes that this would be best for the country?
Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes. So it will be up to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, to do something Democrats haven’t had a lot of success with in recent elections, and make crystal clear to voters that McCain, Miller, and Republican Party, in general, don’t give a damn about them and whether they can pay the mortgage, have to work two jobs to just get by or, indeed, whether they have a home or not, and that when Americans are in need of health care Republicans are likely to say “let them eat hamburgers.”
Here’s McCain’s address:
The Honorable John McCain
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-2235Fax: 202-228-2862
Monday, May 19, 2008
Why Race Matters
Is it racist to discuss race in the 2008 campaign for the presidency? I think this is utter nonsense, but there are many Americans and some in the media who apparently believe this is so.
In articles dealing with race, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman talks about how he “frankly blanches at the race-based” discussions led by many television pundits, even as he writes about race, and Juan Williams of NPR and Fox News indicates that there are voters and journalists alike who think it is inappropriate to discuss polls or other data that attempt to measure racial attitudes of voters and their possible effect on the election. See (http://www.newsweek.com/id/136991 and http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/11/2008-05-11-face_it_democrats_barack_obama)
Perhaps we shouldn’t track either voters’ education and income because it might imply class differences of voters, or discuss the role of religious or geographical affiliation because these, too, might imply a slight of some kind.
Or maybe it does make sense to ignore such things, at least, if you are the same people that are questioning whether it is patriotic to criticize the Iraq war and its conduct or one of the folks that says we should happily cede our rights and freedoms so that we may be protected through the provisions of the cynically named Patriot Act. If the media had not placed its collective man/womanhood in a blind trust after 9-11 and literally “embedded” itself with the Bush administration, and instead looked critically at Bush’s motives and, most important, his evidence for going to war in Iraq, perhaps Democrats and Republicans would not be apologizing for their bone-headed decision to support Bush, burying the thousands of American soldiers killed in Iraq, or puzzling about how we can get out of the morass that is Iraq War.
While there are many in the media who are skittish about talking about race at all, just as nefarious are those who desire to ascribe everything to it.
Remember when many in the media accused Bill Clinton of racism in the wake of the South Carolina primaries when he had the audacity to make a comparison between Obama’s victory in the state and Jesse Jackson’s victories there in 1984 and 1988?
How about the uproar over Michelle Obama’s statement, following her husband’s successes with white voters, that she was for the first time truly proud to be an American, the racial gloss being that she was undoubtably some kind of black nationalist?
And former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro’s statement that Barack Obama, as a black man, had some advantages that Hillary Clinton did not?
While all of the above can be faulted for not understanding how such statements would play out in the crucible of the 2008 Democratic campaign, it is very difficult to take exception to any of them.
Ironically, by branding all of these as somehow inappropriate, by, in other words, either not looking at the accuracy of the statements but simply taking offense at the fact race is mentioned at all, the media have helped fuel a kind of hypersensitivity to race, ensured that it isn’t possible to think critically about its effects, and, most unforgivably of all, given the focus of their profession, haven’t provided the real story or even considered it as a possibility.
So, what about Bill Clinton’s remarks? Who will deny that an increasing Balkanization of white and black voters has occurred since South Carolina, and that there is a real question about whether Obama can get the white Democrats he will certainly need in the general election?
And while there may be those who still take issue with Ferraro’s assessment that Obama does enjoy some advantages as a black candidate, Obama certainly is relying on black voters not only to vote for him nearly en masse but to prevent superdelegates from voting for Clinton even though neither he nor Clinton will likely achieve the number of pledged delegates necessary to win the nomination. Could Hillary Clinton or any other white candidate so count on the outrage of one group of voters that she or he could make this a crucial part of a strategy to win the nomination?
No different than these are Michelle Obama’s remarks concerning being truly proud for the first time about being an American as they, too, have been mischaracterized and dramatized so much as to be unrecognizable. Her comments, including the hyperbole about being proud for the “first time” to be an American, were understandable given the exhilaration of the moment, the racist past of this country and the unfair and unjust treatment of blacks that frequently continues today. That Obama has made it this far has made more than a few people proud of their country in a way they haven’t felt for some time. There are a lot of people, black, white, and Hispanic, who love their country but aren’t proud of its racist past, that it puts so little stock in providing health care for its citizens, or that it supports the death penalty, one of the only countries in the West who still believes this is appropriate. For some in the media this issue, though, was an opportunity primarily to suggest that Michelle Obama was herself racist.
It may be ugly to measure or assess the campaign based on race, gender, class, age and the other demographic information that candidates and pollsters, alike, are using on a daily basis and even making fundamental to their campaigns. And, if nothing else, this campaign, in which race, gender, and class so clearly are playing a role, as evidenced in advance polls, exit polls, polling by the candidates, and the like, is a measure of how far we are from the color blind society towards which Martin Luther King so brilliantly and courageously helped direct us. No doubt about it.
King knew better than anyone that we were a long, long way from the promised land of equality that he envisioned and that this country would not get there without much heated discussion and probably worse. He also knew, though, that we are never further from this goal then when we do not acknowledge the problem at all. If we were to continue to ignore race, blacks and whites would continue to have separate “but equal” educations, an eyebrow would not be raised at an all-white jury sitting in judgment of a black defendant, and there would be no such thing as reasonable affirmative action measures, to mention just a few things that are bringing us closer to something like the equality any reasonable person desires for all Americans.
Race has played a larger role in the Democratic nomination then it will, ironically, in the general election where, instead, all of the issues that generally haunt liberal candidates, such as security, taxes, guns, perceived lack of patriotism, and the like, will be most important. There will be people who won’t vote for Obama simply because of the color of his skin to be sure but these are the issues, such as they are, on which he will ultimately be judged. The real story, yet to be written, is how Obama got to the general election in the first place. And that story, too, will be sorely lacking if it does not include race.
In the end, race is a pretty big story in the Democratic campaign, as are gender and class, just not in the way most people think, thanks to the convoluted, awkward, and, at times, malicious discussion of race that is a legacy of our past. Democrats, with more than a little help from the media, are on the verge of learning this, and recognizing that the presence of race, like the 800 pound gorilla in the room, has shaped reporting of the campaigns and, indeed, pretty much made meaningful discussion of matters such as the implications of demographic data and electability taboo, mere racist claptrap, even if, ultimately, the issue of electability has less to do with race than other things.
Unlike the Republican Party, whose notion of an appropriate candidate comes in one color, one gender, and pretty much a one-size-fits all philosophy, the Democrats do at least deserve credit for giving us the opportunity to talk, no matter how awkwardly or haltingly, about matters of race.
We aren’t anywhere near getting it right yet, as the 2008 campaign makes painfully clear, but it doesn’t hurt to know this either.
In articles dealing with race, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman talks about how he “frankly blanches at the race-based” discussions led by many television pundits, even as he writes about race, and Juan Williams of NPR and Fox News indicates that there are voters and journalists alike who think it is inappropriate to discuss polls or other data that attempt to measure racial attitudes of voters and their possible effect on the election. See (http://www.newsweek.com/id/136991 and http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/11/2008-05-11-face_it_democrats_barack_obama)
Perhaps we shouldn’t track either voters’ education and income because it might imply class differences of voters, or discuss the role of religious or geographical affiliation because these, too, might imply a slight of some kind.
Or maybe it does make sense to ignore such things, at least, if you are the same people that are questioning whether it is patriotic to criticize the Iraq war and its conduct or one of the folks that says we should happily cede our rights and freedoms so that we may be protected through the provisions of the cynically named Patriot Act. If the media had not placed its collective man/womanhood in a blind trust after 9-11 and literally “embedded” itself with the Bush administration, and instead looked critically at Bush’s motives and, most important, his evidence for going to war in Iraq, perhaps Democrats and Republicans would not be apologizing for their bone-headed decision to support Bush, burying the thousands of American soldiers killed in Iraq, or puzzling about how we can get out of the morass that is Iraq War.
While there are many in the media who are skittish about talking about race at all, just as nefarious are those who desire to ascribe everything to it.
Remember when many in the media accused Bill Clinton of racism in the wake of the South Carolina primaries when he had the audacity to make a comparison between Obama’s victory in the state and Jesse Jackson’s victories there in 1984 and 1988?
How about the uproar over Michelle Obama’s statement, following her husband’s successes with white voters, that she was for the first time truly proud to be an American, the racial gloss being that she was undoubtably some kind of black nationalist?
And former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro’s statement that Barack Obama, as a black man, had some advantages that Hillary Clinton did not?
While all of the above can be faulted for not understanding how such statements would play out in the crucible of the 2008 Democratic campaign, it is very difficult to take exception to any of them.
Ironically, by branding all of these as somehow inappropriate, by, in other words, either not looking at the accuracy of the statements but simply taking offense at the fact race is mentioned at all, the media have helped fuel a kind of hypersensitivity to race, ensured that it isn’t possible to think critically about its effects, and, most unforgivably of all, given the focus of their profession, haven’t provided the real story or even considered it as a possibility.
So, what about Bill Clinton’s remarks? Who will deny that an increasing Balkanization of white and black voters has occurred since South Carolina, and that there is a real question about whether Obama can get the white Democrats he will certainly need in the general election?
And while there may be those who still take issue with Ferraro’s assessment that Obama does enjoy some advantages as a black candidate, Obama certainly is relying on black voters not only to vote for him nearly en masse but to prevent superdelegates from voting for Clinton even though neither he nor Clinton will likely achieve the number of pledged delegates necessary to win the nomination. Could Hillary Clinton or any other white candidate so count on the outrage of one group of voters that she or he could make this a crucial part of a strategy to win the nomination?
No different than these are Michelle Obama’s remarks concerning being truly proud for the first time about being an American as they, too, have been mischaracterized and dramatized so much as to be unrecognizable. Her comments, including the hyperbole about being proud for the “first time” to be an American, were understandable given the exhilaration of the moment, the racist past of this country and the unfair and unjust treatment of blacks that frequently continues today. That Obama has made it this far has made more than a few people proud of their country in a way they haven’t felt for some time. There are a lot of people, black, white, and Hispanic, who love their country but aren’t proud of its racist past, that it puts so little stock in providing health care for its citizens, or that it supports the death penalty, one of the only countries in the West who still believes this is appropriate. For some in the media this issue, though, was an opportunity primarily to suggest that Michelle Obama was herself racist.
It may be ugly to measure or assess the campaign based on race, gender, class, age and the other demographic information that candidates and pollsters, alike, are using on a daily basis and even making fundamental to their campaigns. And, if nothing else, this campaign, in which race, gender, and class so clearly are playing a role, as evidenced in advance polls, exit polls, polling by the candidates, and the like, is a measure of how far we are from the color blind society towards which Martin Luther King so brilliantly and courageously helped direct us. No doubt about it.
King knew better than anyone that we were a long, long way from the promised land of equality that he envisioned and that this country would not get there without much heated discussion and probably worse. He also knew, though, that we are never further from this goal then when we do not acknowledge the problem at all. If we were to continue to ignore race, blacks and whites would continue to have separate “but equal” educations, an eyebrow would not be raised at an all-white jury sitting in judgment of a black defendant, and there would be no such thing as reasonable affirmative action measures, to mention just a few things that are bringing us closer to something like the equality any reasonable person desires for all Americans.
Race has played a larger role in the Democratic nomination then it will, ironically, in the general election where, instead, all of the issues that generally haunt liberal candidates, such as security, taxes, guns, perceived lack of patriotism, and the like, will be most important. There will be people who won’t vote for Obama simply because of the color of his skin to be sure but these are the issues, such as they are, on which he will ultimately be judged. The real story, yet to be written, is how Obama got to the general election in the first place. And that story, too, will be sorely lacking if it does not include race.
In the end, race is a pretty big story in the Democratic campaign, as are gender and class, just not in the way most people think, thanks to the convoluted, awkward, and, at times, malicious discussion of race that is a legacy of our past. Democrats, with more than a little help from the media, are on the verge of learning this, and recognizing that the presence of race, like the 800 pound gorilla in the room, has shaped reporting of the campaigns and, indeed, pretty much made meaningful discussion of matters such as the implications of demographic data and electability taboo, mere racist claptrap, even if, ultimately, the issue of electability has less to do with race than other things.
Unlike the Republican Party, whose notion of an appropriate candidate comes in one color, one gender, and pretty much a one-size-fits all philosophy, the Democrats do at least deserve credit for giving us the opportunity to talk, no matter how awkwardly or haltingly, about matters of race.
We aren’t anywhere near getting it right yet, as the 2008 campaign makes painfully clear, but it doesn’t hurt to know this either.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Fuzzy Math and the Superdelegates: Clinton, Obama, and the Final Stages of the Democratic Primary
The Obama campaign and its many surrogates in the media are all squawking about the “math” of Democratic nomination and how insoluble it is for Hillary Clinton. Never mind that most of these blockheads wouldn’t know an integer from a fraction, what is most disturbing is that the writers and pundits are going along, yet again, with Obama’s framing of the issue, just as they did when they aped his admonishment that the superdelegates must follow the will of the people (which apparently means who is ahead in pledged delegates and states won). Sound familiar? These are the same folks who gave up any pretense of journalistic integrity when they acted as the Bush Administration’s public relations team for the disastrous and wrong-headed Iraq War.
While all hope is lost with the media which is far too busy gazing at their navels, watching the spittle fly from Chris Mathew’s mouth, and cheering on Keith Olbermann as he shamelessly maneuvers to be Obama’s Press Secretary, perhaps the superdelegates not tainted by the media buffoonery will consider a few things concerning the matter of electability. In this spirit, then, I offer some information that has less to do with hype, viewer ratings, and profit margins than, if not trigonometry exactly, the facts that have emerged over the course of the Democratic campaign.
White Democrats. Is it possible that a Democratic nominee can win the presidency when he has won white Democrats in only three primaries? Obama is certainly on the verge of being the nominee and has won white Democrats in only his home state of Illinois, Vermont, and New Mexico. In the key swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia Clinton won white Democrats in these states by the ridiculous margins of 70/27, 65/35, and 74/21, respectively. Even in Virginia, a state Obama supporters evoke as proof of his wide appeal, Obama lost white Democrats 56/44, and this was before the Wright fiasco, Bittergate, or the nonsense about William Ayers, the former Weather Underground member.
Independents. If Obama can’t win white Democrats he will need to get a large number of white independent voters, as he did in Virginia with 66 percent to 33 percent for Clinton (remember, he lost white Democrats in the state), in most states to have a chance at winning the general election. Although Obma’s supposed appeal to independents is a primary reason his candidacy was supposed to be bulletproof, his performance with white independents has steadily declined since Virginia. In fact, Hillary Clinton has bested him in this demographic in every primary since Ohio. That means not only has she won the white Democratic vote in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, and West Virginia, she has also won the independent vote in these states. Obama’s campaign has been fond of saying that the more voters get to know him the better he will perform in any given state. As the primary winds to an end the facts suggest otherwise.
Key States. If anyone thinks that the Obama is going to win the caucus states he won in the primary in the general election or that it is possible to “redraw the lines of the electoral college map,” based on what I call Obama’s “Colorado” strategy, I would like some of whatever it is he or she is smoking. Obama has supposedly all but written off West Virginia so thoroughly trounced was he in the state. Does this mean, too, that he will also spend less time in Ohio and Pennsylvania, states which he also lost and which also have a high percentage of working class voters, and focus, instead on states like Utah? If so, he and the Democratic party do this at their own peril. Whatever Obama and his wannabe mouthpiece, Keith Olbermann, might have you believe, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and likely Colorado and New Mexico will, as usual, belong to Republicans. And just as certain, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia—all of which Obama lost--will be states in which the Democratic candidate must do well.
Caucuses. Can anyone say with a straight face that caucus victories in Wyoming, with about 10,000 caucus participants, is any indication of how a candidate will do in the general election. Obama has won every caucus state, nearly all of which are in states that have gone and almost certainly will continue to go to the Republican candidate. Many of the caucuses are in the very states that make up…the Colorado strategy.
These are just a few things the serpentine Democratic nominating process has disgorged for us and, at least in this regard, it hasn’t been complete and total nonsense, nor wholly destructive if the superdelegates fulfill their role in the process by focusing on which of the candidates is most likely to beat the Republican nominee in November.
It is the superdelegates and not the “math,” or at least not the fuzzy math that somehow doesn’t take into account that neither candidate can win based on pledged delegates alone, that will determine who will be the Party’s nominee. And the superdelegates will do this without needing to solve complex equations or, in fact, needing any mathematical skills whatsoever. Ironically, the superdelegates won’t need much brainpower at all, just the cajones to make a decision, based on the information derived over the course of the primaries, to choose the candidate who is most electible instead of, once again, opting to build sandcastles in the air.
While all hope is lost with the media which is far too busy gazing at their navels, watching the spittle fly from Chris Mathew’s mouth, and cheering on Keith Olbermann as he shamelessly maneuvers to be Obama’s Press Secretary, perhaps the superdelegates not tainted by the media buffoonery will consider a few things concerning the matter of electability. In this spirit, then, I offer some information that has less to do with hype, viewer ratings, and profit margins than, if not trigonometry exactly, the facts that have emerged over the course of the Democratic campaign.
White Democrats. Is it possible that a Democratic nominee can win the presidency when he has won white Democrats in only three primaries? Obama is certainly on the verge of being the nominee and has won white Democrats in only his home state of Illinois, Vermont, and New Mexico. In the key swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia Clinton won white Democrats in these states by the ridiculous margins of 70/27, 65/35, and 74/21, respectively. Even in Virginia, a state Obama supporters evoke as proof of his wide appeal, Obama lost white Democrats 56/44, and this was before the Wright fiasco, Bittergate, or the nonsense about William Ayers, the former Weather Underground member.
Independents. If Obama can’t win white Democrats he will need to get a large number of white independent voters, as he did in Virginia with 66 percent to 33 percent for Clinton (remember, he lost white Democrats in the state), in most states to have a chance at winning the general election. Although Obma’s supposed appeal to independents is a primary reason his candidacy was supposed to be bulletproof, his performance with white independents has steadily declined since Virginia. In fact, Hillary Clinton has bested him in this demographic in every primary since Ohio. That means not only has she won the white Democratic vote in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, and West Virginia, she has also won the independent vote in these states. Obama’s campaign has been fond of saying that the more voters get to know him the better he will perform in any given state. As the primary winds to an end the facts suggest otherwise.
Key States. If anyone thinks that the Obama is going to win the caucus states he won in the primary in the general election or that it is possible to “redraw the lines of the electoral college map,” based on what I call Obama’s “Colorado” strategy, I would like some of whatever it is he or she is smoking. Obama has supposedly all but written off West Virginia so thoroughly trounced was he in the state. Does this mean, too, that he will also spend less time in Ohio and Pennsylvania, states which he also lost and which also have a high percentage of working class voters, and focus, instead on states like Utah? If so, he and the Democratic party do this at their own peril. Whatever Obama and his wannabe mouthpiece, Keith Olbermann, might have you believe, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and likely Colorado and New Mexico will, as usual, belong to Republicans. And just as certain, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia—all of which Obama lost--will be states in which the Democratic candidate must do well.
Caucuses. Can anyone say with a straight face that caucus victories in Wyoming, with about 10,000 caucus participants, is any indication of how a candidate will do in the general election. Obama has won every caucus state, nearly all of which are in states that have gone and almost certainly will continue to go to the Republican candidate. Many of the caucuses are in the very states that make up…the Colorado strategy.
These are just a few things the serpentine Democratic nominating process has disgorged for us and, at least in this regard, it hasn’t been complete and total nonsense, nor wholly destructive if the superdelegates fulfill their role in the process by focusing on which of the candidates is most likely to beat the Republican nominee in November.
It is the superdelegates and not the “math,” or at least not the fuzzy math that somehow doesn’t take into account that neither candidate can win based on pledged delegates alone, that will determine who will be the Party’s nominee. And the superdelegates will do this without needing to solve complex equations or, in fact, needing any mathematical skills whatsoever. Ironically, the superdelegates won’t need much brainpower at all, just the cajones to make a decision, based on the information derived over the course of the primaries, to choose the candidate who is most electible instead of, once again, opting to build sandcastles in the air.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Terra Incognita: Obama and the General Election
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)