Wednesday’s campaign round-up

May 28, 2008

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* There’s been some movement on the superdelegate front over the last 24 hours. If my count is right, Barack Obama has picked up four new supporters, worth 3.5 superdelegate votes — Colorado’s Pat Waak, Oregon’s Meredith Wood Smith, Wyoming’s Nancy Drummond, and Guam’s Ben Pangelinan. Hillary Clinton picked up one, the Virgin Island’s Kevin Rodriguez, who’s been a little indecisive (Rodriguez first endorsed Clinton, then endorsed Obama, and has now gone back to Clinton again).

* In a general-election match-up in Iowa, which Bush won in 2004, SurveyUSA shows Obama leading John McCain by nine, 47% to 38%. A month ago, Obama led by seven.

* There’s been considerable discussion of late about whether Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) would be a good addition to the Democratic ticket. Yesterday, Kathy G. writes up the definitive take on why he wouldn’t be a good choice. Similarly, Ed Kilgore summarized the various pros and cons against a Webb VP nomination.

* Francis Fukuyama, who helped create the neoconservative movement before denouncing it, endorsed Obama this week.

* Arab-American voters constitute 3.5 million people in this country, and as Juan Cole explains today, they’re not exactly enamored with John McCain: “Recent polls show a tight race between either Democrat and McCain in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, all states where Arab-Americans account for an appreciable percentage of the vote. Such polls have limited utility with November so many months away, but that it will be a close election in those key states seems clear. In a tight election, the votes of a well-placed minority — Arab-American votes — can be crucial.”

* I have to say, Obama’s ability to read Spanish is pretty impressive. (Does anyone know if he actually speaks any Spanish?)

* Gallup: “In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.”

* AP: “Polls this month show the Illinois senator leading McCain among women, running even with him among Catholics and suburbanites and trailing him with people over age 65. Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton — whites who have not completed college — he’s doing about the same with them as the past two Democratic presidential candidates.” (thanks to V.S. for the tip)

* HuffPost: “‘I don’t know if [Barry Goldwater] would recognize the Republican Party today,’ Alison Goldwater Ross, a registered Democrat and granddaughter of the 1964 GOP presidential candidate, told The Huffington Post. ‘I’m sure if we were to raise his ashes from the Colorado River… he would be going, ‘What? This is not my vision. This is not my party.'”

* In the McCain campaign’s new TV ad, it appears McCain shakes hands with a woman wearing an Obama shirt.

* NRSC Chair John Ensign recently said that the Republican Party is confident that Jim Ogonowski “can be a very serious candidate” against John Kerry this year in Massachusetts. Making Ensign look a little foolish, Ogonowski failed this week to get enough signatures to qualify for the GOP primary ballot. Ouch.

* And on a related note, “Finding a candidate to replace Representative Vito J. Fossella, who will step down at the end of the year, is proving much harder than Republican Party leaders ever imagined.” All of the possible leading candidates have decided to take a pass, in part because it’s not expected to be a GOP-friendly year.

The post about why Jim Webb isn’t a good choice for VP is excellent. Check it out. It highlights all of my previous concerns and a lot more.

I’m still hoping for Wes Clark. He has all of Webb’s positives, and no negatives that I know of. (I’m sure that they exist, and that someone will be more than happy to point them out.)

  • I think McCain was just trying to show that Obama people like him better. After all, why wasn’t the woman shaking Obama’s hand if she liked him so much? As they say, it’s better to have the person you’re sleeping with calling out another person’s name than to call out your name while sleeping with the other person. Same thing here, except with handshakes and t-shirts.

    The bigger issue I have with the ad is the strong implication that Bush has left us with “serious problems.” Oops. Either these people aren’t very good with message discipline or they have no idea what their message is supposed to be. I suspect it’s a bit of both. I don’t think they’ve figured out what to do about Bush yet, and unfortunately for them, the rest of America has.

  • Yeah, I like Jim Webb a lot, but he belongs right where he is, in the Senate.

    And I agree with Okie about Wes Clark and I’d also like to see Brian Schweitzer of Montana brought forward as a possible choice.

  • You know, when I think a moment about people over 65 not “getting” Obama, it makes some sense to me. I’m closing in on that number so I’m not so far off those people in terms of life experience. People my age are the ones who can remember segregation as the rule of the day when we were growing up and our initial world views were being formed. The “n-word” fell easily from peoples’ mouths, and I am not talking about the South – it was that way in Denver, Colorado, where Blacks “knew their place,” Mexicans were “greasers,” and the “Wops” and other ethnics in North Denver knew they would always be in second place to the “real” (read Anglo-Saxon Protestant) Americans in east and south Denver. When a large Jewish temple was built on a prominent hill in southeast Denver, it was casually called “Kike’s Peak” and no one thought anything of saying such a thing.

    Yes, there were those of us who got it that this was somehow wrong (which is not to say I didn’t say and think all of that at one point), and over the past 50 years I am glad to say that at least one of us in my generation (actually there are about 10 from my high school class who are politically involved like I am) managed to put some effort into helping to bring about the changes that have happened. However, for the majority of that generation, they didn’t willingly choose to change their minds – public opinion changed on them and it’s no longer “polite” to say such things, so they don’t. But they still don’t “get it,” and in their hearts they resent the changes, since the changes appear to represent a “loss of status” to them – they can no longer define “the other”.

    I look at you who were lucky enough to be born after 1960 and grow up in a world where the things I fought for are everyday “taken for granted” social issues now, the lack of racism, homophobia, mysogyny, etc., and I like what I see. But there are a lot of folks who spent even more years in the rancid world of good old American b.s., whio have a much harder time with it. That’s because most people don’t go around examining their life and why they think the way they think.

    Which is why I am always glad to run across the 85-year old woman who answered the phone I was calling for Obama fundraising and went on at length about how happy she was that she was going to live long enough to see a black man becoe President.

  • Wes Clark targeted civilians in former Yugoslavia – (of course on a much, much smaller scale than Bush’s war crimes, but he did and that’s a fact).

    http://www.democracynow.org/2004/1/26/exclusive_democracy_now_confronts_wesley_clark

    In the interview Jeremy Scahill does come off as pushy and Wes as calm, but that doesn’t change the facts – Gen. Clark made the call to bomb a TV station which killed 16 journalists, despite knowing that the evacuation was not complete.

  • Oh and even worse in my book:

    JEREMY SCAHILL: In Yugoslavia, you used cluster bombs and depleted uranium…
    GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure did.

    That rules him out, right there. Case closed.

  • Clark is a bad choice for a few reasons: he’s a bad campaigner (at least he was in 2004), he’s kinda dull, he doesn’t seemingly bring any new constituencies or states into play, he’s made some past statements (I’m thinking of his notorious statement on abortion) that could be used against him and indicate a lack of political skill. I think Clark’s a credible Defense Secretary in an Obama administration, but I don’t think he makes much sense as a VP candidate.

    I think Schweitzer is a good pick as well, but having two fresh faces on a ticket might be worrisome. I think Obama ought to pick an established figure that people know and are familiar with, so that way people who might say, “I like Obama, but I’m not sure about him on x, y, and z” would be able to say, “Well, if so-and-so vouches for him, I guess he’s alright.” I’m not exactly sure who that might be–possibly Biden, though he might be too hawkish and he supported Iraq more vocally than Clinton did. I’m increasingly beginning to believe that John Edwards makes the most sense for the job. It doesn’t jeopardize a senate seat or governor’s mansion, Edwards is popular with the groups that Obama isn’t right now, and he’s a known quantity. Plus, feminists seem to like him, and there seems to be some reticence in those quarters to a Webb candidacy.

  • Gallup: “In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.”

    This is really bad news for Obama, the GOP hasn’t even begun to attack him yet and he is already barely keeping up with McCain while Clinton is beating him handily across the map.

    If Obama wins the nomination and does not pick Clinton for VP, I believe it will be 4 years of McBush.

  • That Gallup poll finding bothers me. I’m wondering if we’re not making a mistake by nominating Obama.

  • I continue to hope that Sebelius will be picked, with Clark as a second choice. But I really don’t know much about Schweitzer — except that he’s Governor of Montana and pro-gun — and anti-Voter ID laws, which I’d hope any Democrat would be. Even Wikipedia doesn’t have much on him.

    I see what Sebelius would bring to the ticket — a woman and Catholic (yes both help), pro-Choice, a record of bringing Republicans across the aisle and assuring they’d stay there, a fascinating family history (first Father-Daughter team of Governors, father liberal Democratic Governor, father-in-law very conservative Republican Congressman, her history of taking on some pretty important — but not politically beneficial — fights like her battles with Phil Kline and against Creationism. (I’d love to see THAT made an issue, because — as with most of the ‘religious’ questions — it would be a winner for us this year.)

    On the other hand, she has no foreign policy experience or military experience. This might not be as much of a problem if Obama continues to use McCain’s blunders — and more his anti-Vet votes — against him.

    Clark brings plenty of weight on the Foreign/Military front, but after seeing him for six years, I’m still not sure of where he stands on domestic issues — which are likely to be much more important. He’s my second choice, but definitely second.

    Why is Schweitzer worth being on the list? Not challenge, serious request for information.

    [Btw, on the list of ‘it’ll never happen, but wouldn’t it be great if it did,’ the best and most progressive liberal in America is probably Barney Frank. He’s wonderfully articulate in his Bayonne way almost always on the right side of an issue. He couldn’t be picked, but wouldn’t it be great if he was?]

  • Webb, needs to stay where he is. Clark, didn’t know about the cluster bombs, now I do, forget it. Any female Democrat, especially Hillary Clinton, sorry. Not going to happen. Yes, I’d say the same about Obama if Hillary had a prayer of getting the nom.

  • Two things:

    1) I found this in the comments section of Kathy G’s blog, it currently covers 10 possible VP picks: http://www.theleftanchor.com/vice_president_profile/index.html

    If you’re not inclined to read the whole thing (it’s long and he hasn’t even covered HRC yet), it looks like Strickland and Edwards are near the top of that guy’s list.

    2) Regarding the poll numbers, yeah I’ve been disturbed by some of the numbers I’ve been seeing lately. Despite the fact that Obama seemed to have mostly won the “appeasement” argument and the GI bill, and McCain’s had a tough week with lobbyists, the poll numbers are going the wrong way. HOWEVER, please give Obama time to introduce himself to those who haven’t been watching the Democratic race as intensely as we have been. We’re six months away, and the current polls will look unrecognizable when we see the final tallies. Guaranteed.

  • I like how the woman in the Obama shirt, in John McCain’s ad, looks like she’s shaking hands with a panhandler. I’ll bet she hit the hand-sanitizer after that!

    Priceless!

  • The post about why Jim Webb isn’t a good choice for VP is excellent. Check it out. It highlights all of my previous concerns and a lot more. — Okie, @1

    Indeed. Very eloquently put. The gender issues were a *big* deal here when he was running for Senate and, given that women tend to go to the poll both more dependably than men do, we can’t risk a repeat of it, only on a larger (national) scale. Amusingly, I think he must know he has a “woman problem”; the calendar he sent his supporters (and one which hangs close to hand to write reminders on) is titled: Celebrating 200 years of Women and the Capitol

  • Jim Webb is doing exactly what Obama should be.. getting some experience in the Senate! A ticket with 2 neophytes would be disastrous for the party.

    If Obama is going to shun Clinton, he needs to pick Biden.

  • Obama’s spanish accent IS very impressive, especially if you’ve heard Bush mangling the language. I’m guessing he speaks it, but not fluently. If he did, he would have showcased it when he spoke to the Cuban community in Miami– and he would have killed ’em.
    But if he IS as fluent as he sounds, then he missed a big opportunity. It’s worth his time to brush up on thelanguage on those long plane rides.

  • As for the Gallup poll numbers, two things.

    First, polls are — and have to be — weighted based on the past voting history of a particular segment. The one thing they can’t catch is a change in the percentage of voters actually voting. This year the RRs will be staying home in droves — so they are being overweighted in polls. At the same time, a much higher proportion of young people, and of blacks, will be voting so they are being under-weighted. (This is just about participation, not about who a group will ‘go for.’ It just works out that this year both changes favor Obama.)

    Much more importantly, Obama has an ‘upside’ while McCain doesn’t.

    The more people see and hear Obama, the more he seems to attract them. Look at us. Few of us started out with Obama as a first pick. He was my fourth, after Richardson, Edwards, and Dodd. But once I saw his campaign I knew he was the right choice. He’s been impeccable in handling everything, and his habit of walking into groups, telling them things they don’t want to hear, and still making friends is a major plus. A lot of people who aren’t saying they will vote for Obama now will be convinced by election time

    Meanwhile, McCain has no upside. (The same was true of Hillary. I’ve heard no one who wasn’t for Hillary say how her campaign and her personality had changed them in her favor.) Even those who are convinced that the MSM will continue to ‘protect him’ have to admit that the only stories that have appeared recently have been negative ones:
    The Pastor Disaster
    The Lobbyists
    The Vet Bill opposition
    Cindy’s tax returns
    etc. And all of these — except the Vet Bill — have appeared without Obama pushing them.

    Compare the Hillary voters with the Huckabee voters. Until now there were theoretical — if highly unlikely — possibilities that Hillary could win, and she’s been running only on ‘electability’ for some time now. So yes, Hillary supporters will say they won’t vote for Obama to boost this argument, but they’ll have four to five months of seeing Obama and McCain and almost all of them will come back. (I’m not ruling out being able to convince some of the Appalachian racists — no, Cubbie, not ‘cater to,’ there is a difference. I bet there will be a lot of reporting of exit polls where some people say ‘I woulda sworn nothing could get me to vote for no n!gger, but that McCain’s so crazy I didn’t have no choice.’)

    Meanwhile — AFTER the nomination was mathematically assured — Huckabee voters continued to come out to register a vote against McCain — and that was before the Pastor Disaster and the Ellen appearance. They may not vote for Obama, but a lot of them will never vote for McCain. (Barr may get quite a few of them — if McCain doesn’t bring up whipped cream as a way of stopping himself from landing in 3rd place in some states.)

  • Dr. Zoidberg (18) Obama’s spanish accent IS very impressive

    It certainly wasn’t when he was in Nevada shouting “Si, se puede.” He sounded like he’d never heard a Spanish person pronounce a “d”. I’m guessing he’s had a lesson or two since then.

  • To those saying that these poll numbers are a problem for Obama, recognize that he’s currently the target of two camps, and that Clinton supporters are actively encouraged at this point to react negatively to Obama in the polls while Obama has been nothing but conciliatory for several weeks now.

    What’s more striking is that Clinton, who’s not the target of any attacks from either campaign (and in fact has received glowing words from the likes of Karl Rove) is polling below 50% in most polls. This should be alarming for any remaining die-hard Clinton supporters because this is her absolute ceiling. This doesn’t even take into account the route that she’s need to go to grab the nomination at this point.

    Obama will be fine. Given the opportunity, he will consolidate his party, and move onto the general election where it’s starting to become pretty clear that John McCain will be overmatched. Hillary and her supporters just have to recognize that it was a hard fought match and she put up a hell of a fight, but she lost. It’s time to move forward, and do what’s best for the party and the entire country.

  • Protip, you are fooling yourself if you think that this is some broad conspiracy to make Obama look worse off than he actually is.

    Clinton has had her share of gaffes, but so has Obama, the difference is that he has really offended people in the worst places, swing states.

    Clinton will win in the delegate race when calculating all primaries, only when you throw in the un-democratic caucuses does Obama win.

    Caucus voters amount to 2.9% of the voters but account for 15% of the pledged delegates so far. In other words, one caucus vote counts for the same as five primary votes.

  • Greg, I hadn’t heard all about how only the states that Clinton won should “really count”. Please tell us more, it’s such a fascinating and innovative argument!

  • Greg, it’s clear that you’re one of those Clinton supporters who’s unwilling to face reality at this time. Caucuses are not “un-democratic”, they are simply another way to participate in a democratic election. Many states use them for all sorts of reasons, including that they’re good for party building, cheaper, and that they encourage a more informed electorate.

    However, none of the arguments for or against caucuses matter one wit, since they are and were part of the political process. One that BOTH camps knew about well before hand. In fact, Clinton has several immediate members of her campaign that played very important roles in the formulation of the rules this time around.

    Listening to the arguments that Clinton supporters try to make about why one contest or state or set of rules count right now, but didn’t earlier is like listening to an alcoholic rationalize why he can have just one more drink before quitting for good.

  • From Franklin: “2) Regarding the poll numbers, yeah I’ve been disturbed by some of the numbers I’ve been seeing lately. Despite the fact that Obama seemed to have mostly won the “appeasement” argument and the GI bill, and McCain’s had a tough week with lobbyists, the poll numbers are going the wrong way. HOWEVER, please give Obama time to introduce himself to those who haven’t been watching the Democratic race as intensely as we have been. We’re six months away, and the current polls will look unrecognizable when we see the final tallies. Guaranteed.”

    Here is another “I told you so” moment for me. I’ve been trying to tell you that Obama’s remarks are not playing the same way with non-Obama supporters as they are with those already in his camp. If he were winning his arguments with McCain, he should be making more headway in the polls. Further, Obama has introduced himself to Democratic voters in almost all states now and yet he has been unable to pull his race higher than a virtual tie with Clinton. There is no reason to believe that the better people know Obama the more they will like him and vote for him. That hasn’t happened in states where he outspent Clinton two or three to one and yet could not win (e.g., PA).

    Cuban Spanish is not the same as Mexican or even Puerto Rican Spanish. He might get himself in trouble if he uses the wrong accent and vocabulary with a group that is proud of its specific heritage. There is more to winning Hispanic votes than pretending to speak Spanish. He’d do better to concentrate on substance instead of superficialities.

  • I’ll just say that Greg also inadvertently just made a superb case against Hillary Clinton’s current popular vote metric. Thanks for that.

  • “In a tight election, the votes of a well-placed minority — Arab-American votes — can be crucial.”

    and since barack hussen obama x is clearly a muslim sleeper agent, it should be not trouble for him to close the deal.

    h/t to mary and greg ‘-)

  • This is really bad news for Obama, the GOP hasn’t even begun to attack him yet and he is already barely keeping up with McCain while Clinton is beating him handily across the map.

    No, this is bad news for McCain. Obama’s been pounded by Hillary’s best for months, while McCain keeps trying to hit him from the other side, and nothing sticks. But the campaign against McCain has barely started and ALREADY he’s not looking so good. And the big problem with McCain is that everyone already knows who he is, and if they don’t like him already, isn’t getting any better. And once they get to know him more, they more they’ll reject him.

    Besides, as I kept trying to explain before, Hillary attacks against Obama in a Democratic primary hurt because Hillary was a respected Democratic leader. Republican attacks against Obama in a general election won’t amount to much because people don’t listen to Republicans anyway. Just as Hillary’s influence is limited to Democrats and independents sympathetic to her, McCain’s influence is limited to Republicans and independents sympathetic to him; but those people weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway.

    Or think of it this way, Greg: If you were basing your opinion of Obama solely on what McCain told you, rather than what Hillary told you, would you put as much weight to it? Of course not. You dislike Obama because he was Hillary’s opponent, but McCain’s attacks won’t mean anything to you. So it is with all of the non-diehards. Only Republicans listen to Republican smears.

  • Greg-

    The race is for delegates, period. If the race was for popular vote, or if the primaries and caucuses were weighted according to your system, guess what? The campaigns would have been waged differently. Nobody would spend time campaigning in the now-worthless caucus states. And we would have no idea what the outcome would be.

    C’mon, you know this to be correct. It’s another reason why we don’t change rules in the middle of the game.

    -Franklin

  • Caucuses disadvantage older voters, working class people, and mothers with small children. These groups do not have the time to go out in the evening and spend several hours engaging in a political process. When babysitters are involved there is a financial burden. When going into an unfamiliar neighborhood or driving after dark (which many elderly people do not do) or finding the energy after a day of physical labor is involved, there is a pressure to skip it. The more complex the caucus procedures and the more intimidation by others is possible (as when people must stand in a certain part of a room to vote, or there is active lobbying for votes during the caucus, the less likely some voters will feel free to express their opinions. Obama’s young, enthusiastic voters dominated the caucuses because the process favored them. It is hard enough to go stand in a line and vote at a neighborhood polling place, but when you cannot do it during the day or fit it into an otherwise busy schedule, then certain people just aren’t going to be able to vote. By knocking out such voters (who tend to support Clinton more than Obama), the caucuses present an unrepresentative picture of the wishes of the state’s voters and perhaps an atypical result compared to what might be expected in the Fall when voters can go to the polls at their convenience and vote in the privacy of a booth with pressure from others.

  • Micheline, you’ve been something of a sleath or plausibly deniable concern troll for quite some time. Glad to see you finally come clean with it.

    In mid-June of 1992, Bill Clinton was trailing a distant third in the Gallup general election polls after first-place Ross Perot and second-place George H.W. Bush. Although everyone (i.e., Greg and Micheline) knows that early summer Gallup polls are absolutely determinative of November presidential election outcomes, somehow I missed the great Perot triumph of 1992.

  • “McCain’s had a tough week with lobbyists, the poll numbers are going the wrong way. HOWEVER, please give Obama time to introduce himself to those who haven’t been watching the Democratic race as intensely as we have been.”

    Agreed, but I think giving McCain more time to introduce himself is far more important. His poll numbers are only as high as they are because he’s been lying low for months and newspeople have been studiously ignoring him in favour of the Democratic primaries.

    Obama will poll about 5% or so ahead of him until the campaign begins in earnest in September, although it will go up and down a bit, then Obama will pull away decisively. And the change will, as usual, be less about people voting for him, so much as against McCain.

    Obama has his flaws, sure, but McCain is probably the worst Republican candidate since Warren Harding. Too many people already know that for McCain to have a good chance of winning, and more people will discover it as time goes on.

  • Franklin,

    The purpose of the primaries and caucuses is to give delegates guidance about how to vote at the convention. Delegates can vote any way they want — even pledged delegates. The purpose of the convention is to select a qualified candidate with a strong chance of winning in the Fall. The primaries and caucuses give the candidates a chance to demonstrate their electability. However, if those primaries and caucuses were themselves binding elections, there would be no need for a convention — the states could just directly elect their candidates. It doesn’t work that way. The delegates will weigh the evidence of the past months and cast their votes during the convention to select the nominees. They could even select someone who has not run in a single caucus or primary, if they wanted to (though I cannot see that happening, it has occurred when a compromise candidate is needed). I get very tired of Obama supporters trying to rewrite the process to ensure that their guy gets the nomination, without waiting for the process to play out. Clinton is making a strong case that Obama cannot win the Fall and Obama is helping her do it by showing that he cannot make inroads against McCain. Clinton has held off attacking Obama recently and he STILL is not pulling ahead. That should be telling the delegates something. I know you guys don’t want to hear this, but your guy doesn’t have the best chance of winning in the Fall, and given that Clinton and Obama are otherwise closely similar, it would make more sense for the delegates to select Clinton at the convention.

  • A ticket with 2 neophytes would be disastrous for the party.

    Sigh. So, are we still pretending that Laura Bush is better qualified to be president than Obama? How does Barbara Bush stack up? Sure, she only had four years as First Lady, but had eight as the VP’s wife and those were during the great years of Ronald Reagan, which has got to count for something.

    It’s over, Greg. It’s over.

  • Mary-

    I do find some truth in your comment that the apparent winner of the arguments appears differently to different people. However, given that foreign policy is supposedly “owned” by Republicans, convincing anything close to half of the electorate that you’re right is a win for any Democrat. Weak argument but it’s true. And the fact is, despite the yucky wishy-washiness over what “preconditions” means, Obama did clearly win the argument. McCain looked like a complete ass by directly contradicting his own positions from a couple years ago (w.r.t. both Hamas and Syria).

    I do *not* find much truth in your comment about him being truly introduced. Sure one could ask why he’s only even up with Hillary. Or one could ask why Hillary was only even up with him. It’s only partially relevant for the general election. Now he introduces himself to more independents and Republicans, only some of which have been covering the Democratic primary (and likely not very closely). The only things most of them know so far is 1) he’s black, and 2) he had a crazy pastor. Let’s just wait and see what they think about his actual demeanor and stances in debates against McCain.

    FWIW, agree completely on the Spanish “dialects”.

    -Franklin

  • What I like is that at 1:03 “Greg” draws our attention to some Obama news, then at 1:10 “Micheline” expresses concern about it.

    Perhaps “Greg” can expand on his later comment about Biden for VP.
    Or, perhaps “Micheline” can do it for him!

    On that shunning bit;
    Can anyone imagine what would be like to be President of the USA
    and have the Bill & Hil Show as your vice-president?

  • KRK,

    Although I like Obama better than Clinton but I belong to the school of
    ” I just want a damn Democrat in the White House” than an Obama supporter. The presidency is not a popularity contest.

  • Mary, we can see that your deep concerns about the caucusing process, which only coincidentally date from about the time your candidate suddenly discovered her concerns about the caucusing process, are tied to a profound care for having the most effective and fair nomination process possible. No one here would be churlish enough to suspect that this passion of yours will wane in any way once Clinton is no longer running for president.

    So with that in mind, please come back here from time to time in coming years to tell us about the work you’re doing to reform this process for future elections. I don’t doubt that everyone here shares my interest in your progress as you commit to a noble cause completely outside of how that cause affects any one person. This, I’m proud to note, is just another example of your true dedication to objective notions of justice and the sanctity of the democratic process. Candidates may come and go, but you, our little cupcake, are unshakable in your principles.

  • Mary-

    1) You reference me and presumably other people on this board as “you guys”. It appears that you think we’ve all drank the Kool-aid, etc. Far from it. As a self-described slightly left-leaning independent, I disagree significantly with various Obama (and Clinton) stances. In fact if it wasn’t for Iraq, my vote could be up for grabs by a *real* (fiscally conservative) Republican. I could list the reasons I tend to support Obama more than Clinton, but it’s not going to sway anybody one way or the other. My point here is that I don’t really feel you can group me with everybody else.

    2) I actually know those delegate rules. Pledged delegates are indeed allowed to change their vote, of course they’d probably never be invited back, but they can. But looking at it from the start of the campaigning season, the point is to win delegates. Obama did, period. And I’m not sure where you’re coming up with this argument that Hillary is more electable. From Karl Rove’s flawed swing state analysis? Current polls have her down to Obama by 10 points, at least according to the updated RealClearPolitics page. That’s not even close, Mary. She’s down in every single category, pledged, super, popular vote, etc. If Michigan had had a real primary, it would have been neck-and-neck (although she most likely would have still won), which would have easily kept Obama’s popular vote. The Florida vote was probably somewhat accurate, even though Obama usually got at least a small bump after introducing himself (and for the last time, he *needs* to spend more money to introduce himself … if you’re not aware, Clinton is a pretty well known name around these parts, and people vote on name recognition – you *know* this).

    In any case, polls go up and down, sometimes seemingly at random. We’ll see if the past few days continue indefinitely. To be honest, I’m not really going to waste time arguing Clinton/Obama anymore. I would have voted for either, but it’s been over, really, since Super Tuesday.

    -Franklin

  • To add to the Wes Clark downside.
    He’s a white male.

    I’d go for Richardson, Napolitano, or Sebelius at the moment.
    Assuming any of them would agree to it.

    The “two rookies” argument, points to Richardson, if he’ll bite the bullet for the sake of the party. Experience and both the Latino and Native American voting blocs. Geographic desirability too.

  • Mary,

    I caucused in Texas at MIDNIGHT and there were some diehard Hillary, OLD women there. Perhaps Hillary’s rabid supporters just aren’t as rabid when they have to put out a little effort? I stayed and voted for Obama even though I’m a 54 year old diabetic whose blood sugar gets severely out of whack when I don’t get enough sleep AND I also work. The polling place was in a very bad neighborhood. Yet I managed, as did families with children asleep in strollers…

    Keep telling yourself stories…

  • Concerning the polls. I just saw the following from:

    http://www.liberaloasis.com

    Almost every poll taken this last month (NOT atracking poll) has shown Obama leading McCain:

    CBS/NY Times: Obama, 11 points
    USA Today/Gallup: McCain, 1 point
    Ipsos: Obama, 4 points
    LA Times/Bloomberg: Obama, 6 points
    NPR: Obama, 5 points
    Quinnipiac: Obama, 7 points
    ABC/Washington Post: Obama, 7 points
    Reuters/Zogby (including Ralph Nader & Bob Barr): Obama, 10 points
    GW-Battleground poll: Obama, 2 points
    Investor’s Business Daily: Obama, 11 points
    Newsweek: Tie

    • Comments are closed.