March 20, 2008
Can Hillary still win?
As I’ve said before, don’t count her out just yet. Jay Cost at RCP has a new post summing up his earlier argument that Hillary has a path to the nomination which is “plausible, but unlikely”. I think his reasoning is correct, but I would add a couple of things. (And to head off my own batch of emails accusing me of being a Hillary stalwart, I will first repeat right now that I much prefer Obama as the Democratic nominee.)
A first point, which should hardly need to be made, is that this race is close. Clinton and Obama have divided the party right down the middle. If you look at that fact alone, what can people calling on Hillary to give up now and drop out be thinking? We know that the pledged-delegate count will not settle this. The outcome will depend on the superdelegate vote, and that is not pre-ordained. Hillary would be mad to surrender in this situation.
Second, especially if Hillary can narrow (or overturn) the various vote-count gaps by August, the candidates’ standing in the polls will count too. This is the main thing I would add to Jay’s take. Suppose that Obama has a small lead in pledged delegates, and Clinton has forced, in effect, a tie in the popular vote. But also suppose that by then the national head-to-head polls show her with a ten-point lead or better over Obama. That will sway some of the superdelegates–as it damn well ought to, since their most important task is to get a Democrat elected.
A lot can happen between now and the summer. (Despite Obama’s fine speech on the subject, it is not yet clear how much harm the Wright affair has done to him. There might very well be more such setbacks, for either side.) By the summer, the polls might be tied too, of course–which would be bad for Hillary, because she has to overturn Obama’s pledged-delegate advantage. But they might not be tied–and if they aren’t, that will matter.
All indications are that at least some of the mud from the Jeremiah Wright smear is sticking to Obama. That can only help Hillary, despite her weaknesses on the issue of trustworthiness. She is a bright, articulate, experienced candidate who, if nominated, should be able to run circles around McCain on the issues.
However, she has been running a remarkably dirty campaign to date, and not only many Republicans and independents, but many Obama supporters like myself are going to have big problems with her character issues and politics as usual approach if the extreme right wing campaign of racial invective and innuendo against Obama (which I do not attribute to Hillary) hands her the nomination.
Posted by: algasema | March 20th, 2008 at 5:58 pm | Report this commentI used to support Hillary. Now I could never vote for her. Just about everyone I know feels the same. Hillary supporters shouldn’t be feeling comfortable. And there are the Iowa futures–with Obama’s lead still 2-1. The Wright issue caused only a temporary dip. Thank God!
Posted by: em | March 20th, 2008 at 7:19 pm | Report this commentObama is having a really bad week. Trying to clarify his white grandmother comment in his Race speech, Barack in an interview today said, ” The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know there’s a reaction that’s been been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that’s just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it…”
Tell me, what is a typical white person, or a typical black person, or a typical Latino, etc.?
Post-racial, indeed!
Posted by: Ann H | March 20th, 2008 at 8:27 pm | Report this commentOops, another Obama faux pas!
Obama church published Hamas terror manifesto
Compares charter calling for murder
of Jews to Declaration of Independence
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59456
Posted by: Ann H | March 20th, 2008 at 9:38 pm | Report this commentColumn today in the LA Times by Michael Meyers, African-American and executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition and a former assistant national director of the NAACP
OBAMA BLEW IT
What the candidate should have said about race.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-meyers20mar20,0,3898931.story
Posted by: Ann H | March 20th, 2008 at 9:48 pm | Report this comment‘What can people calling on Hillary to give up now and drop out be thinking,’ you ask? If they’re partisan Democrats, perhaps they recognize that if Hillary manages to claim the nomination, it will be a catastrophe for the Democratic party.
Even in the unlikely event that she wins without any further ‘kitchen sink’ tactics, the Obama camp is going to feel cheated (with some justification). The sense of disillusionment and disenfranchisement among young Obama supporters may drive them away from politics for a decade or longer… or worse, to John McCain. The Democratic party will have torn itself in two, poisoned its future, and exposed itself as woefully inept (particularly in its handling of Florida and Michigan).
On the other hand, perhaps those calling for Hillary to quit recognize that her nomination would be a catastrophe for all Americans. As bitter and disillusioned as Obama’s young white supporters will be, black voters will feel even worse. I fear that a sizable segment of the black community will see it (again, with some justification) as evidence that racism presents an impenetrable ceiling for blacks in American politics. If Hillary Clinton, wife of America’s ‘first black President’, can’t be trusted to give a black candidate a fair chance, what hope is there that anyone else will? It is not a stretch to imagine that American race relations could be set back a generation or more. As much as Republicans would relish the self-destruction of the Democrats, they must realize that the subsequent racial strife would not benefit anyone. The willingness of the Clinton/James Carville school of politics to sweep the pieces from the board rather than lose the game has been demonstrated on a number of occasions, most notably after the 2000 election. Imploring Hillary to resist that urge in 2008 is the only sensible thing to do.
Posted by: Kurt Z | March 21st, 2008 at 5:46 am | Report this commentThe primary issue for many within the democratic party advocating a SUSPENSION of Hillary’s campaign is that with every passing day the party is only self destructing further.
Posted by: Paul Walker | March 21st, 2008 at 6:25 am | Report this commentIf Obama were to become untenable between now and the convention all Hillary would need to do is make her campaign active again.
By doing as you would suggest Clive, Hillary is only strengthening John McCain. Especially since she & Bill are employing republican talking points and are busy comparing Obama to “W” and saying the McCain is better prepared for the presidency.
By suspending now Hillary could do far more for her campaign by letting events work themselves out while she remains on the high ground.
If she chooses to continue to ACTIVELY campaign to the convention all she will accomplish is the defeat of the party in November regardless of who is the nominee.
I: SOUR GRAPES
Here we go again–supporters of one candidate questioning the legitimacy of
1 the Electoral College when the result failed to go their way (2000);
2 the popular vote altogether when the result failed to go their way (2004);
3 the Super Delegates when the result is unlikely to go their way (AUG2008)
–shouldn’t they start thinking up reasons to dismiss the result in NOV?
II: JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY
Why does Mr Crook respond to ‘emails accusing him of being a stalwart [of our opponent]’ by declaring that ‘I much prefer [your choice] as the Democratic nominee’?
Mr Crook is, of course, as entitled to his preferences as anyone else among us, and his choice may, of course, go one way or another. But …
QUESTION I: If journalists–especially of the FT, even in blogs–submitted to fear of the mob pounding at the gates baying for blood, by appeasing them with a statement, no matter if incidentally true, then what happens to integrity?
QUESTION II: Why bother attempting rational discussions and fair elections if we will simply submit to those who shriek the loudest?
Posted by: HKLivingston, 26, investment banker | March 21st, 2008 at 8:11 am | Report this commentHillary (and the half of the party that supports her) is thinking that she has nothing to lose. This is the last campaign for her and Bill. The Democratic establishment has abandoned her. The black community has abandoned her. Ultra-liberals have abandoned her. She well could head into the convention with only 100 pt difference in delegates and several hundred super-delegates yet to decide the nomination. She could be the nominee and stand up to McCain.
Obama voted to fund the war in Iraq and against comprehensive immigration. He calls Wright family, while McCain repudiated white preachers as “agents of intolerance.” Obama is calling for tax cuts, while McCain voted against both Bush tax cuts. He even adopted a Bangladeshi girl fifteen years ago, before it was popular. For the first time in my life, I’m seriously contemplating voting for the Republican. Obama can’t even keep his rhetoric straight, while the Republican candidate has a progressive record. Only Hillary can compete with that in a national election.
Posted by: Jim | March 21st, 2008 at 2:33 pm | Report this commentBravo, Kurt Z, Bravo!
Posted by: algasema | March 21st, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Report this commentJim, John McCain’s “progressive” record is becoming a lot less progressive by the day, with his about faces on immigration reform and the Bush tax cuts. By November, McCain will probably be indistinguishable from Romney, Giuliani, or, worst of all, Bush, on most of the issues.
Who has done more damage to this country over the past seven years, George W. Bush or Reverend Wright, notwithstanding the latter’s idiotic speeches, verging on lunacy, that Obama should have had the sense to realize much earlier on could derail his presidential ambitions? And where have been the calls for McCain to reject the support of our “Great Decider” (and Torturer in Chief)?
Clearly, black, liberal candidates are subject to a much higher standard of rejecting support from obnoxious sources than white, more conservative ones.
Posted by: algasema | March 21st, 2008 at 3:58 pm | Report this commentSadly BHO is not going to make it. If he does not fall over the racial/ wright issues, he will sucumb to his alleged antisemitism. Take a look at Ann H^s link. On Fox TV it was openly questioned whether he is an antisemite (found that episode via daily show). There will be a lot more of this in the coming months if the racial thing does not work out. This lobby has a lot of power and they will use it. Bette get used to Hillary, at least she seems to know the difference between sunni and shia in contrast to Mc Cain.
Posted by: bmh | March 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm | Report this commentThe US Presidential race is a very sensitive issue. McCain victory will mean a weak America, because he will continue the unwise policies, i.e. war in Iraq. However, McCain is a preferred choice for other hyper-powers, which compete with the US on the global arena. Clinton may turn things around in the USA as a result her win will mean good time for Americans in long term perspective, but it is less preferred by emerging hyper-powers. It may be a case that Obama as the US President will be a kind of long awaiting compromise, which will work for both American nationals as well as the rest of the World.
Posted by: Viktor O. Ledenyov | March 21st, 2008 at 5:27 pm | Report this commentFox News will decide the outcome of this election only if the American people are stupid enough to let it, as was the case in 2004 with all the free publicity Fox gave to the Swift Boat ads. However, if we all follow Ann H’s example of not watching Fox News, then Obama may have a chance.
Of course, by the time the election comes around, Fox News will be casting Obama, if he gets the nomination, as an alleged holocaust denier and Muslim terrorist who has been supposedly selling nuclear secrets to North Korea and who, in Fox’s view, would back Constitutional amendments to take the vote away from white people and to make Spanish (or Swahili or Indonesian) the official language of America, while allowing only blacks to own guns and requiring schoolchildren to take a pledge to support his “cousin”, Osama bin Ladin, every morning.
Sadly, no matter how ridiculous this might sound, there would be many Americans who would believe it. I would hope that bmh would not be among them, since he/she seems so ready to take Fox News seriously. Of course, if Hillary gets the nomination, Fox will be ready for her too - with round the clock stories on how Vince Foster’s body was “suspiciouly” moved to a Washington park.
Posted by: algasema | March 21st, 2008 at 6:40 pm | Report this commentI meant “suspiciously”.
Posted by: algasema | March 21st, 2008 at 6:41 pm | Report this commentIt doesn’t matter who wins, because they have some extreme issue to deal with and they won’t survive if we don’t help a bit more.
First WE must debate about complex issue:
-Should we force people to recycle everything?
-Should we export massively populations in danger of violence, pollutions or natural disasters?and where?
Posted by: samuel champagne | March 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm | Report this commentIn my above comment, I should have written: “by the time the election comes around, one might imagine Fox News as casting Obama”. I did not mean to predict that Fox News actually will present the ludicrous stereotypes of Obama mentioned in my comment, which was intended as satire. I merely meant to make the point that, even if Fox were ever to present extreme and utterly false negative images of Obama similar to those I have described, there are all too many Americans who would believe them.
This is why, even though other cable channels such as CNN and MSNBC are already moving beyond the Wright story, of which the significance has been wildly overblown, Fox, which has always been a political propaganda tool rather than a real news channel, is continuing to run the Wright story, with all its ugly racially charged overtones, ad nauseum, and will probably do so right up the the day of the election if Obama wins the nomination. This is exactly what Fox did with the Swift Boat lies about John Kerry’s war record in 2004.
Granted, Obama opponents can argue that Jeremiah Wright did indeed make a number of comments which are as revolting as they are false. That, certainly, is no lie. One can also question Obama’s judgment in letting himself be placed in a position where it would be so easy for his opponents to smear him.
But the big lie is the notion that Obama has ever said anything to indicate that he agreed with Wright’s comments, which run counter to everything Obama stands for. Fox is actively supporting this lie by presenting “polls” purporting to show that a significant percentage of Americans (mainly white) actually believe this absurd falsehood.
Remember, it is not so long ago that many Americans, also heavily influenced by Fox, thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. 4,000 more American soldiers and more 100,000 Iraqi civilians would most likely still be alive today if it had not been for that big lie.
Posted by: algasema | March 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 am | Report this commentI meant to write: “100,000 more Iraqi civilians”, not “more 100,000 Iraqi civilians”.
Posted by: algasema | March 22nd, 2008 at 5:38 am | Report this commentYeah, I prefer Obama too, because then, a dream ticket such as McCain/Powell just might squeeze through. But honest politicians such as those two, reasonable people with experience, a brain each and a conscience in charge of the country? No, it’s too beautiful a dream.
Posted by: elizabeth schumann | March 22nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm | Report this commentI am truly shocked at some of the comments on this blog!Let me be up front about it I am an independent ,not a democrat or republican.What shocks me is the very poor choices left to vote for in 2008.All the candidates have serious flaws of one kind or another,but obama takes the cake for sheer deception,and crude,vicious anti-white rhetoric at the time he is so heavily dependent on the votes of the”lost souls” white liberals who,even after his spinmaster speech on race relations in America,desperately defend his candidacy.How could this country have fallen to LOW to actually enable a race hustler like obama a shot at the presidency? I believe if he gets the nomination it will split the country,indefinitely,into two different color camps and MCCain may walk away with the presidency.Many democrats supporting Hillary have been telling that if Hussein gets the nomination they are voting MCCain in November!!
Posted by: raymonda | March 22nd, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Report this commentraymonda, the reason that so many people in America are backing Obama is precisely because he is encouraging us to rise above the narrow racial divisiveness of which Jeremiah Wright’s speeches, which Obama has emphatically rejected, are one example, and your comments are another.
Posted by: algasema | March 22nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm | Report this commentYou’re dreaming. Obama is toast. Not only is the Wright controversy decimating Obama’s numbers, it’s hurting the Democratic Party brand as well. The Democrats have two choices: (1) nominate Obama and experience a Goldwater moment in the fall election or (2) nominate Hillary and ride to victory.
Here are latest grim results for Obama from SurveyUSA and from Rasmussen.
http://www.surveyusa.com/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
For the good of the Democratic Party, Obama should withdraw from the Democratic primary post haste.
Posted by: Ann H | March 22nd, 2008 at 9:53 pm | Report this commentAnn H, if Obama were to pull out, it would mean that the Democrats have agreed to let their choice of candidate be decided, not by the voters and the delegates (pledged and super) but by the smear and fear artists at Fox News (your favorite unchannel) and on right wing talk radio. Not a great boost for the Democratic brand, I would say, at least not as far as this voter, who has voted for every Democratic candidate for president since John F. Kennedy in 1960, is concerned.
Let us talk about double standards for a moment. James Carville has just compared Governor Richardson’s endorsement of Obama to Judas’ receiving 30 pieces of silver. Would you care to explain how this comment is less offensive than Jeremiah Wright’s ranting and raving? Can you imagine what the uproar would have been if Richardson had endorsed Hillary and one of Obama’s people had said the same thing?
In case you have any trouble explaining the difference between Carville’s comment and Wright’s, I will suggest one: Carville’s was more anti-Semitic than most, if not all, of what Wright is reported as having said.
You are also overlooking one possible benefit to Obama from this whole Wright affair. In the midst of all the hullaballoo about what Obama was doing inside a black church for 20 years, even Fox News has stopped suggesting that he is a Muslim - at least this week.
You also mention Goldwater: I remember the 1964 election very well, including some pro - Goldwater ladies in tennis shoes shouting “The Reds are for Johnson! the Reds are for Johnson! How Red are you?” while trying to drum up support in lower Manhattan for Senator “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice”. Nothing could be more opposed to the spirit of tolerance that Senator Obama is urging on us, if we will only listen.
Posted by: algasema | March 23rd, 2008 at 1:23 am | Report this comment