April 23, 2008
The race goes on
You have to admire Hillary’s determination. Being the underdog brings out the best in her–and it either neutralises or makes forgivable the less appealing aspects of her campaign and character.
She remains the underdog. Her victory in Pennsylvania was solid without being startling. The margin was exactly what was required to make it certain that she would stay in the race–yet without much altering the arithmetic that so strongly favours Obama. Her ten-point advantage is less than she needed to get on track to overturn Obama’s lead in the Democratic popular vote (although, admittedly, this depends on how you measure it); his lead in pledged delegates was secure in any case. It is not enough, either, to persuade wavering superdelegates that the Obama campaign is failing–or at any rate, failing so badly that they could override a pledged-delegate lead without tearing the party to pieces. Having said all that, once again she arrested his momentum, and raised questions about his ability to close the deal.
He can argue that he came through the Wright and Bittergate affairs unscathed. His overall result in Pennsylvania was close to his performance in Ohio, a demographically similar state, which voted before those recent setbacks. Indeed, he made big inroads on Hillary’s early lead. One wonders whether, if not for Bittergate, he would have held her to a closer result, and maybe even won–in which case it would all have been over. But he did not, and, money permitting, this result most likely gives Hillary enough momentum to keep going through all the remaining primaries.
What kind of campaign will she fight from now on? As I say, she will most likely end up losing, but what matters for the party’s electoral prospects in November is the manner of her losing. She may increase the intensity of her attacks on Obama–which puts her party as well as her own reputation at risk. Or perhaps she will strike a more positive note, calculating that a negative assault does not meaningfully improve her chances. You could argue that her best hope now is to stay viable as a candidate and pray that Obama makes some terrible error, and she does not need to go negative to do that. It will be interesting to see whether Hillary is capable of that kind of tactical compromise–whether she can do anything but fight all out, whatever it takes.
Clive–Hillary now leads in the popular vote total by over 100,000 if MI and FL are included.
But, for some reason, Obama is intent on disenfranchising the voters in those two states. Wonder why.
In any event, it should be abundantly clear to the super delegates that Obama cannot close the deal with the Democratic Party base. Furthermore, should Obama become the nominee, Reagan Democrats will flee the Party in record numbers, ensuring a McCain victory in the fall.
Frankly, Hillary is the only hope Democrats have to win back the Presidency this November.
Posted by: Ann H | April 23rd, 2008 at 5:57 am | Report this commentAnn H: Thanks. You’re right and I should have mentioned this–although including Michigan as well as Florida seems very hard to defend. The RCP count puts him 300,000+ ahead if you include Florida (unadjusted) together with estimates for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington (which did not report totals, but which would be difficult to exclude altogether if you take the “every vote must count” line). She needed to do better in Pennsylvania to be confident of overturning his lead on that measure, let alone on the measures that exclude Florida. But I agree it is significant that she is now out in front on one of the counts, even if it is, as I think, the most dubious of the lot.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Posted by: Clive Crook | April 23rd, 2008 at 6:56 am | Report this commentOne can argue indefinitely over the significance of the votes in Michigan and Florida, and whether the results of those far from democratic primaries (with a small “d”) should be counted or not. But Hillary’s solid win in Pennsylvania, where Obama outspent her by at least 2 to 1 and had the support of a popular senator and son of a former governor, is not a good sign for Obama’s prospects. I say this as an Obama supporter.
Ann H. may well be right that Obama could not “close the deal” with what is at least a very importnat part of the Democratic coalition, namely namely socially conservative blue collar workers, and that many of them may defect to McCain as they once defected to Reagan. But we should ask ourselves why this might be the case.
The answer, I believe, is not in Hillary’s virtually nonexistent “charisma” or her having impressed an increasing number of voters as being trustworthy; the polls strongly contradict the latter conclusion, at least. It lies almost entirely in the success of the negative attacks on Obama, largely by Hillary, but by the media as well.
I know that Ann H., according to her previous posts, never watches Fox News, but I very much doubt that the same is true of many of the blue collar workers who appear to have given Hillary her margin. Last week, by coincidence, I happened to be staying for a couple of days in a Philadelphia hotel (where, I must say, my Obama button made me instantly popular with at least some of the staff). While Fox News was available in my room, its sometime counterweight, MSNBC, with people like Chris Matthews and, especially Keith Olbermann, who are more sympathetic to Obama, was not.
It is no secret that Fox News, and even less biased media such as CNN, have been beating the Jeremiah Wright story to death and trying to paint Obama, whose genuine concern for working class Americans comes across clearly in every word in every one of his magnificent speeches, as an “elitist” who looks down on and is supposedly “out of touch” with ordinary Americans. No seems to consider that being a black community organizer on the South Side of Chicago is hardly a traditional training ground for members of the elite, or that Obama is taking on the wealthy business and financial elite who, for example, have profited most from subprime mortgage predatory lending, the Iraq war, and the Bush tax cuts, more vigorously and with better anti-lobbyist credentials than Hillary or anyone else.
Nor does anyone seem to ask how one can be an “elitist wimp” and an alleged supporter of the Black Panthers, Weathermen, Nation of Islam, “Black Liberation theology” and (in fact) a former parishioner of Jeremiah Wright all at the same time. Nor does anyone ask how having been been a member of that church for 20 years squares with Obama’s being a supposed “Muslim” a falsehood that all too many voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere undoubtedly still believe to be the truth.
To put it much more simply, Hillary is not gaining in the affections or estimation of American voters; it is Obama who is falling, almost entirely because of the despicable and utterly false negative attacks against him for which Hillary’s campaign bears a great deal of, though hardly all, the responsibility.
As a result, the Democratic party is in increasing danger of losing the opportunity to have, not only its strongest and most genuine candidate, but one of the greatest figures in its entire history, one who, if given the chance, could walk all over the severly compromised, right wing pandering and flip-flopping John McCain, as its standard bearer this fall.
In one of my posts, I may have mentioned that I thought that Barack Obama was the greatest, most inspiring speaker that America has known since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I have to say, however, that based on Obama’s speech last night in Indiana after losing the Pennsylvania primary, I have changed my views. I should have said Abraham Lincoln instead.
Posted by: algasema | April 23rd, 2008 at 9:56 am | Report this commentHillary’s victory is not a surprise to me. I think it wrong to credit her chutzpah and cheek as the reason she gained ten points on Obama in a state that mirrors the broader US electorate. I also think Obama is foolish, as evidenced in emails I have received from his campaign in the past few horus, to suggest that he is still in the lead. He is not. As you put it, it is unclear that he can “close the deal”.
Why?
As I have noted, the “special interests”–that fear a loss of their behind-the-curtain power and influence–have succeeded in strategically planting the big questions about Obama. At the same time, Obama has allowed himself to be drawn onto their playing field and one no longer hears new thinking from him or his advisors. One no longer really believes US policy will change with Obama. Particularly, its foreign policy, where he utters the same doublespeak that has led to the historic failures of both the Clinton and the Bush Administrations.
At a gut level, listening to Hillary this morning, one is forced to consider what our mornings will sound like if she does win in November. News will lead off much the same as it has for the past 16 years: the interminable Israel-Palestine dilemma (to put it lightly); fears of Iran; fears of the mythical Chinese Dragon; Blackwater; Iraq; and stories that extend US and Israeli Exceptionalism in all international and economic spheres. Arrogance. strategic lies, rumours of more lies, self-righteousness, political correctness, and government by public relations firms. And Bill. His grin. His sly smile. His phoney indignation.
All this will play on until such time as sheikhs and Neocons will cease to fund the broadcast. The world will shake violently before that day comes. Meanwhile, one can see and hear little that will close the incomes gap in the US or contribute to a more promising global outlook.
Gideon Rachman suggests US politics are like reality game shows. I think this is how many have planned it; how else can they work? Only Obama’s core advisors seem to be willing to rethink the format.
Posted by: WCM | April 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 am | Report this commentalgasema,
Is the messenger to carry the blame? Or could there possibly be a grain of truth in what Fox and others have pounced on?
Could it be that Obama has always wanted to have his cake and eat it? Wanted to be a community organiser and civil-rights lawyer, and also wanted to be an elitist academic? Wanted to associate with the instinctive anti-Americanism (actually anti-White Americanism) of the downtrodden and excluded, and also wanted to be a careerist politician, senator and even president?
There is no contradiciton in Obama’s work as a community organiser and his perceived haughtiness and elitisim. Both are signs of one and the same insecurity, compensated on the one hand by the warm embrace of the Black community and on the other by outward signs of professional and academic achievement. There is a similarity here to the way part of the Black community have compensated for their insecurity by means of reverse racism (But I am not saying Obama himself is racist).
Obama is both “Black” and “White” and could have associated with either. Through his marriage he chose the more difficult path, and for this I commend him. But you cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot be a member of Wright’s church for twenty years, and then expect the media to overlook your church’s xenophobic ideology and your pastor’s racist outbursts.
Posted by: RCS | April 23rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm | Report this commentWithout suggesting RCS’ comments merit a glance, I will only note that “wannabe” is a term most often associated with the Clintons–particularly, Hillary. As Mr Crook has noted, her campaign has been marked by a kaleidoscope of wannabe moments.
“…his perceived haughtiness…” — Forgive the man (Obama) for thinking he is engaged in a serious endeavour.
Posted by: WCM | April 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm | Report this commentAnn H, Sorry but that’s a truly uninformed comment. The situations in Florida and Michigan are the result of party discipline decisions a long time ago. What Obama wants is to follow the rules. What Hillary wants is to break them, thinking she will gain as a ressult. This is only one more sharp pieceof evidence pointing to the poor quality of her character.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | April 23rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm | Report this commentThere was no substance in Hillary’s ugly, almost obscene performance.
All the woman has demonstrated is that harsh name-calling and brutishness work well in American politics.
But really, we already knew that. That is the way you get the kind of leaders who bring you Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Chile.
And this nasty piece of work gave us the promise of obliterating Iran on election morning. The day before she ran an obnoxious ad featuring Osama bin Laden.
America, you deserve what you get.
Have you ever driven through rural Pennsylvania?
I did several times, and although some of it is physically beautiful, it can be a frightening place.
I recall a group of four or five camoulflage-suited goons standing around, guffawing, in the lot of an Esso I pulled into one evening. I could see, as I pulled up to the pumps, their guns sticking up in the back of a pick-up truck.
I could tell something unusual was going on, but I didn’t want to stare. Raised in a rough part of the U.S. myself, I knew you don’t look too closely around these types without inviting, “What ya lookin’ at?” or “Ya starin’ at me?”
As I filled my tank, I realized what they were doing.
They were kicking a live animal - something large, perhaps a groundhog - fiercely back and forth like a football on the pavement, all to great laughs and yells of things like, “Hey, that there’s cruel!” I could hear its body skidding on the pavement.
I was too intimidated to speak, although I spoke to the attendant who virtually ignored me, and there were at least four of them, and there were the guns.
I have other Pennsylvania stories, but that one captures exactly what Hillary appealed to.
Good God.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | April 23rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm | Report this commentJohn, riveting story, but Hillary also appealed to New York, Ohio, Texas, California, and especially to women. You cannot make such sweeping accusations about a candidate’s supporters.
I agree she has gotten down to some dirty mud-slinging, but the ammuniton was there. Fox and the others didn’t invent stories about Obama’s questionable associations. The facts were there, it was legitimate to highlight them.
Posted by: RCS | April 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm | Report this commentRCS, you cannot be a member of Wright’s church and a Muslim at the same time. Nor are members the Black Panthers, the Weathermen and the Nation of Islam (to mention three organizations that Fox News lie machine is smearing Obama as somehow being connected with) generally considered to be among America’s elite. Regardless of our political views, we should all be opposing the use of slash and burn smear techniques such as guilt by association and the Big Lie, not trying to find excuses for them.
As for embracing “Anti-White Americanism”, no candidate has shown himself more concerned with righting the injustices in our society that afflict all of the downtrodden, white and black, a term that, in George W. Bush’s America, is inceasingly coming to mean everyone except the super-rich, than Obama. Based on his own speeches and actual words, not on those of people he has known but whose ideas he has emphatically rejected, saying that Obama is “anti-American” is about as accurate as saying that Lincoln’s goal was to break up the Union.
WCM is absolutely right in suggesting that powerful interests in both parties supporting the political, economic and foreign policy status quo are behind the campaign to destroy Obama. And Ann H.’s optimism about Hillary’s chances of defeating McCain is far from justified. If an Obama candidacy will have to face a tsunami of lies and smears about Obama’s supposed agreement with the likes of Jeremiah Wright (not to mention two well-known Middle Eastern figures with names similar to Barack’s own names), a Hillary campaign will be fought over equally vicious lies and smears about the death of Vincent Foster, Bill’s affairs and alleged drug use, Hillary’s alleged sexual orientation, the Whitewater and “Travelgate” non-scandals, and on and on and on.
Hillary, who knows so well what it is like to be on the receiving end of what she once accurately called the “vast right wing conspiracy”, should be the last politician on earth to be imitating that kind of politics. Unfortunately, that is exactly what she is doing, and even more unfortunately for America, that accounts, in large part, for her recent success.
Posted by: algasema | April 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm | Report this commentI have to correct my use of the word ‘riveting’ in my previous post: I thought it meant something akin to ’shocking’. That is, I was not being cynical about the horrendous brutality that John Chuckman had described.
algasema, If as you say Fox are broadcasting pure lies, wouldn’t that that would merit an anti-libel case?
I notice “guilt by association” is much derided here, but if complacency in a crime is a criminal offence, why should “guilt by association” be different? (I am not suggesting Obama has done anything criminal, just pointing to a similar logic of ethics.)
Posted by: RCS | April 23rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm | Report this commentanother correction: …wouldn’t that merit an anti-libel case?
Posted by: RCS | April 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm | Report this commentOne further note: Hillary’s almost ran out of cash, so in what way are the “powerful interests that support the status quo” propping her campaign? How does this vast anti-democratic conspiracy work?
Posted by: RCS | April 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm | Report this commentCan somebody explain to me how HRC can win the fall election if 90% of African Americans are voting for Obama and show no sign of breaking to Clinton? Her numbers within the African American community are as terrible as a republican candidate in a general election and show no sign of improving. She could not win the general election against McCain without a high turnout from African Americans as McCain is stronger in attracting independents and will challenge HRC core base; blue collar, low income, older voters
Posted by: KWM | April 23rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Report this commentA great victory at uncertain time. The race is on. The battle of Democratic party candidates in North Carolina will clarify everything. I appeal to many hundreds of my business friends, colleagues and democratic supporters at Fuqua School of Business in Durham, NC to take an active participation in voting during coming primaries.
Posted by: Viktor O. Ledenyov | April 23rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm | Report this commentRCS, many years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that it is almost impossible to libel a public figure in America, no matter what lies one may spread. While I do not condone Fox News’s smears for a moment, free political discussion would be impossible in this country without that decision, which should be applauded and upheld. Otherwise, we would be on the road to being Russia, China or Zimbabwe.
Certainly, Hillary is having trouble raising cash. Without her smear and fear campaign against Obama, supported by (though probably not coordinated with - but look at the collusion between Fox News’s Sean Hannity and former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos over the Ayres affair) cash rich right wing Republican media, she would be even worse off.
If Hillary does manage to win the nomination and the election, she will most likely be a “centrist” president, beholden to large business interests (which are indeed supporting her campaign up to the legal limits) especially on trade and foreign policy, in the same mode as her husband.
Posted by: algasema | April 23rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
We could go on and on, but that doesen’t explain how this particular resurgence, accomplished after most big donors reached the legal limits on their donations and therefore could not bankroll Hillary’s campaign, how this resurgence can be explained away as the work of “powerful interests that support the status quo”.
It can’t. America is a robust democracy and the people of Pennsylvania have spoken.
Posted by: RCS | April 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm | Report this commentSome pundint’s ask disingenuously, Why Can’t Barack Close the Deal? The TRUTH OF THE MATTER, is that Barack is fighting TWO opponents, Clinton & the Republican Machine: Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Fox News, Wolf Blizter, and they fight a lot dirtier, louder, harder than “light”! They fight with lies, distortions, brain wash and money. Barack is doing something new and necessary, though slower because a loud voice gets a lot more attention than a sane, compassionate, low-speaking one, like Barack’s. That is why he is having such a hard time. Look at the unevenness and unfairness of the last debate? The new Republican’s and Clinton’s talking point is why cannot Barack put it away. The answer is he is fighting a three-headed Giant, the Clintons and the Republican Machine — it is a Giant compared to Barack and the assault goes on 24/7 starting with Morning Joe and continuing all day with Fox News! Then there are the new swift-boat TV adds and false emails, he is being blanketed with — and then they smile to themselves and ask smugly, “Why can’t he put her away? Knowing the dark answer to this question and the dark seed they hope to plant into the minds of the people who are unable to think for themselves and are influenced by fear and ignorance. But humanity’s heart is opening to the light and the energy of goodwill. May be this time, we can overcome these awful forces of destruction to mankind, may be this time.
Posted by: Angellight | April 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm | Report this commentI’m not sure that Angellight put things as elegantly as might have been done, but his/her post is still a more than adequate answer to RCS’s latest comments.
Posted by: algasema | April 23rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm | Report this commentRe: the question as to how HRC’s coffers may be under stress if “special interests” are supporting her, I would suggest that special interests have long known better than to overfinance any one campaign. AIPAC (also supporting McCain-Lieberman who don’t really need their money yet), the Vatican and the banking industry (which owes the Clintons an enormous debt) can finance their interests through many indirect venues.
The onus is now on Obama to raise the bar again in this campaign. Exposing the devious manipulations of the Clintons and their supporters would not require that he stoops too far. He needs now to prove that he is not Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis or Gary Hart or Jimmy Carter.
Failure to stake out clear breaks with current Washington economic and foreign policy will cost him the smart/elite support that built his campaign in the beginning. Obama cannot afford to wait until December to begin to name who would join him in his cabinet. He cannot win this election alone; he needs a team on the field with him.
It has been said that he has a strong base of support among centrist Republicans on Capitol Hill. It is time he give them reason to step forward.
Obama has established his grass-roots base (including blacks). Being nice and honourable will not help him if his credibility fades amongst decision makers in US society.
In the days ahead, lapel pins and bibles should be binned. It is time to look at a world with a dollar sliding below USD2.50:€1. It is time to ponder the responses of Iraqis when they realise the US accounting applied to their oil revenues.
Those who are making China sound like the newest member of the Axis of Evil or shaking menopausal/Viagra-primed fingers at Iran will never be factors in the restoration of value to the dollar. So, it is up to Obama, yes? This race is neither a beauty contest nor The Weakest Link. Nor should it be The Apprentice. One would like to think it is about sound leadership and government in times more challenging than war.
Posted by: WCM | April 23rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm | Report this commentHillary’s PA triumph has ensured that she is the winner on the donation front, as well. Hillary has raised $10 million from 50,000 new donors since the polls closed in Pennsylvania last night. Go, Hillary!
Posted by: Ann H | April 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm | Report this commentHow, why and when did the progressive and liberal Democratic Party invent this sham of an electoral process? Who was the genius who, inspired by Nietzsche, conjured the idea of the ’superdelegate’? How could anyone imagine the possibility of unelected superdelegates overriding the popular vote? It never happened with the electoral college, why would the Democratic party want to reverse 250 years of constitutional development? No doubt, one of the greatest acts of political stupidity in living memory.
If it were true, as the FT editorial claims, that Hillary could not win the popular vote, then the conclusion it reaches is inescapable and unavoidable: Obama must be allowed the nomination. Otherwise this farce will dwarf that of the 2000 election, the legitimacy of whoever is elected will be doubted (for instance, if McCain won against an un-elected nominee) and the whole of the American political system would be rocked. Fortunately, much rests on how the popular vote is defined and counted (Mugabe has much to learn from the Democratic Party) so that legitimacy may be saved and choice in the general election preserved (If Obama were nominated, he would lose by a land-slide).
Action must be taken to prevent a repeat of this fiasco. The two parties are more than voluntary citizens’ associations — they are an integral part of the American constitutional order. Congress m u s t intervene to set the rules for inner-party primaries.
Posted by: RCS | April 23rd, 2008 at 10:18 pm | Report this commentHillary has already won the popular vote total by 12,000 votes, including IA, NV, ME, WA, FL, and MI (see RCP Polls). So, today’s FT editorial, “Democratic fight turns gladiatorial” is factually incorrect.
As to who is the better candidate, that is a matter of opinion. FT says Obama, and I say Clinton. So, who is right?
The Democratic Party has a long history of long and contentious primary battles, including 1980 when Ted Kennedy took the battle to the convention floor despite being almost 1,000 delegates BEHIND in the pledged delegate count. So, the battle between Hillary and Barack is nothing new.
What is new is that every time Obama loses, there are calls for Hillary to step aside or for superdelegates to get off the fence. Mollycoddling Barack is not going to help the Dems win in the fall. So, FT, I suggest you step aside, and let the primary play out.
If Obama succeeds or fails, it will be on his own merits, not because of continued intervention by those who think they know what is best for the Democrats and the United States.
Finally, Hillary’s supporters will be equally outraged if this primary process is shortcircuited in any fashion. And you can bet that the Democratic Party will be reeling for decades should they lose the support of women voters.
Posted by: Ann H | April 23rd, 2008 at 11:37 pm | Report this commentAnn’s logic and counts have also been in my calculations, even though they are based on more than a few manipulations and tedious twists, as befits the playing fields of rules-based US lawyers. The film Michael Clayton–or this more recent one with Glenn Close that has been sequeled on the BBC–tell us what we need to understand about US law and justice and more. Some of us are more intimately involved in these matters on a cross-border basis and would unlikely rank the US legal system much higher than a casino.
Cries for direct democracy and every-vote-counts absoluteness are at odds with the US Founding Fathers, who, rightfully, created a principles-based representative system. The Electoral College was intended to smooth over the risks inherent in unpredictable events, dispersed and rugged geographies and assorted failings of the human condition that were likely in a world where vote tallies were delivered in sacks on horseback. The Democratic Party has done likewise. As with everything in the US, the spinners have rendered football-match analogies to placate the public.
Mr Obama and his team knew this Clintonian-”legal” landscape at the outset and took the strategy of raising the bar, as this turn in US history has set forth an unprecedented imerative to do so. The Clintons have masterfully pulled them and the US down to their Arkansas backwoods rules.
Again, this morning, I have an email from Mr Obama’s campaign. I lift some opening sentences from it. It says:
“Last night, Senator Clinton used up her last, best chance to cut appreciably into Barack Obama’s elected delegate lead.
She came up short.
In fact, she barely made a dent.”
I think they are getting it very wrong. Obama is letting his legal friends lead him. The vision thing is burning out. Very sad, particularly when we look at this from Europe and see the US slipping further away.
Posted by: WCM | April 24th, 2008 at 6:14 am | Report this commentIs she determined, or simply pig headed? The Democratic race is now starting to hurt its electoral propsects.
It doesn’t really matter whether Obama or Clinton wins the Democratic race if their victory proves to be phyrric - winning the battle but losing the war.
Posted by: M | April 24th, 2008 at 3:48 pm | Report this commentHillary Clinton continues to prove that she is in this race for herself and not for the people. She seems oblivious to what she is doing to the Democratic party, and her attacks on Obama have been nothing less than disgusting.
A month ago, I would have been happy with either candidate, just as long as we have a Dem. in the WH in January, but now I have NO intention of voting for HRC, who has made a complete mockery of the entire democratic process.
Perhaps when she loses the Democratic nomination, she could put herself forward as McCain’s VP, as she seems to have aligned herself very well with the republican party.
Posted by: meljomur | April 24th, 2008 at 11:47 pm | Report this comment