Despite the spin coming out of the Clinton Campaign, Senator Hillary Clinton will never be the nominee for the Democratic Party in the 2008 election. Senator Clinton has not dropped out of the race and continues to campaign in the upcoming contests, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oregon. She is not continuing this race in hopes of winning but is staying in as a matter of principle. Her populist message of letting the voters decide is grounded on the completion of all contests, including Puerto Rico. She’s likely to drop out by June after the last contest and an agreement to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations.
But Obama can’t give up yet. Even with his grand coronation by the punditry and the media, he still must show his strength. He needs to close the gap in West Virginia and Kentucky if not win outright. He is the presumptive nominee and when one is the presumptive nominee, one should be getting the majority of votes. He needs to get a substantial amount of the working class vote in order prove that he cannot only get nominated but also elected. The hardest thing for Democrats is to reposition themselves from the liberal wing of the Democratic party to a more moderate position that appeals to a wider base. West Virginia and Kentucky won’t change who the nominee is but it can act as proof to Senator Obama’s weakness or his progress.
Senator Hillary Clinton’s argument lately has been that she is more electable and a more formidable candidate than Senator Barack Obama. After winning the Pennsylvania primary two weeks ago, Clinton has shown strength in the polls , tying with Obama with in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll for the last twelve days. She has the momentum. The contests in North Carolina and Indiana are very close.
Clinton is the heavy favorite in Indiana and Obama is predicted to win North Carolina. However, if Senator Clinton wants to deliver a serious blow to Senator Obama, she must win North Carolina and not by much. If she splits tomorrow’s contests, she doesn’t have a new argument. Instead, she only gets to underscore her attacks against Obama. She will show that she can’t capitalize on her momentum coming out of Pennsylvania. Her campaign has, again, made the argument that they have been outspent by millions of dollars in ads and staff. But, this excuse won’t stand because Clinton pulled off a decisive victory in Pennsylvania where she was also outspent by Obama. A defeat would signal her inability to exploit Obama’s weeks of bad press and Jeremiah Wright. A North Carolina and Indiana victory for Obama will indicate that he has survived the rantings of Jeremiah Wright. Voters will have told the country that Wright does not matter nor will he ever.
If she can’t win either Indiana or North Carolina, she will have to drop out. A concession speech would most likely follow within forty-eight hours.
Senator Obama’s message of hope and change is clearly not working. It didn’t work in Ohio a month ago and didn’t work in Pennsylvania last week. He should have realized his message’s failure when he lost by ten points in Ohio. He didn’t. He stuck with it and brought it into the working class towns of Pennsylvania for six weeks believing that the economically depressed wanted hope and change. They don’t and his devastating loss proved it. They may want hope and change but they need to put food on the table first.
If Obama wants to win Indiana, where he has actually has a shot, he needs to be like Senator Hillary Clinton. After her devastating loses in February, she and her team realized that her message of experience was not resonating with voters. She moved to her solutions based message and added the image of the fighter. She became the candidate who will fight for the working class. She evolved into the candidate that cares for the people who will be the president who stands up for the working class. She directly addressed the issues of the working class. Obama was too caught up with hope and change and was blind to the fact that the voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania were more concerned about healthcare and the economy than his soaring rhetoric.
Obama has started to talk more about the economy. However, he still hasn’t given up on hope and change. Yes, it was successful before but he’s in a different arena now. The economy is in a slump and unemployment is high. Recession concerns need to be addressed by solutions and actions, not speeches or hope. We can hope all we want but at the end of the day a president’s actions not words employ people and get us out of this recession.
President Bush gave his last speech tonight at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. He gave the usual roast and showed a series of clips from his past WHCA performances. Tonight, like in other appearances, he showcased his humor and ability to make fun of himself. Underlying all this is his skills at being very down to earth, the person people would most like to have a beer with. The last few presidents have also portrayed this personality trait.
In Pennsylvania, Senator Clinton became the hometown girl, someone very down to earth, someone who was like all regular Pennsylvanians. She became one of them. She emphasized her Scranton roots where she spent her summer vacations and where her grandfather worked in a lace mill. This message seemed to have connected with voters given her victory in Pennsylvania. Can Senator Obama do the same? If Senator Obama presents himself in the “detached former law review editor” who is the “classic good-government guy whose reach to society’s hard-pressed is limited,” as E.J. Dionne, Jr. of The Washington Post wrote this Tuesday. Obama needs to become a typical American–not the Whole Foods arugula or calorie watching candidate–if he ever wants to connect with Clinton’s base, the base he desperately needs if he is to defeat Senator McCain.
This perception may exist only because he has yet to open himself up to the country. Obama went on vacation a few weeks ago to a tropical island, staying at the Ritz-Carlton. That’s not typical American. He may not be the kind of man that clears brush at his ranch like President Bush, but Obama’s staff should have created photo opportunities successfully showcasing his hometown bona fides. Pick something he can do, unlike his humiliating bowling attempt.
Obama’s policy stances are very close to Clinton’s. It’s come down to character, Clinton’s character poll numbers prove. Obama can extend his reach of his base by becoming more grounded and less aloof. If we can imagine him doing a WHCA dinner, roasting himself and coming off as genuine, he just may be able to pull this whole thing off.
Here are some initial thoughts on tonight’s big win for Senator Clinton:
Hillary Clinton proved that she can hold her base of white working class men and women. While superdelegates may be switching sides to Barack Obama, Obama has consistently shown that he cannot make progress into Clinton’s base. In a post two days ago, I wrote that there were several key things to look for as the results came in.
Here are a few things to look for Tuesday night:
*Has Senator Clinton maintained her base of white middle class men and women, the less educated and less affluent?YES
*Has Senator Obama cut into Clinton’s base–the one’s he called “bitter” and the so-called “Reagan Democrats?”NO
*Whose negative attacks had the most impact on people’s votes?It seems that most Pennsylvania voters felt that both candidates attacked one another unfairly by 44%. 24% felt only Clinton did opposed to 6% Obama. 24% said neither.
*For whom did the newly registered Democrats vote?New Pennsylvania Democrats voted for Obama 62%
Moments ago, the Clinton campaign circulated a memo saying that with all the money and resources the Obama campaign is pouring into the state of Pennsylvania, Senator Obama could possibly win the state tonight. In yesterday’s conference call with reporters, Howard Wolfson and Geoff Garin implied that any victory–small or big–is a victory and would still raise questions about Obama’s ability to win in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. But to have legitemate claims to stay in the race, Clinton needs a substantial margin, hopefully in the double-digits. Any single digit margin will be spun as defeat by Obama and the press. Senator Obama is also lowering expectations, saying that it will be a close election. In doing so, Obama has set the standard such that if he loses and it is not by a close margin, he will also lose the spin war. There is a possibility that Senator Clinton could win today in the double digits. The Drudge Report reported Clinton internal polling showing Clinton winning by eleven percentage points.
Regardless of the outcome, Senator Obama will most likely roll out previously secured superdelegate endorsements in a show of strength. If Obama loses, the endorsements will show that superdelegates still find him the stronger candidate and that the Pennsylvania primary results do not matter in the long run. If he wins, the endorsements will be another call for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race and ask the party to unify around Obama as the nominee.
The Clinton campaign’s memo below.
Read the rest of this entry »
Recently discovered audio of Senator Hillary Clinton speaking at a campaign fundraiser have her criticizing and blaming MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy group that has endorsed Senator Barack Obama, for her loses in caucus states.
“We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn.org.org didn’t want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And they turn out in great numbers. And, you know, they, they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them, so they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”
This morning on Meet the Press, Clinton Chief Strategist Geoff Garin could not point out specific incidents of voter intimidation that Clinton mentioned in the fundraiser.
“I’m here for two weeks now, so this was—comment was made in, I believe, at the beginning of March. But, look, the truth is Senator Clinton, as she said in that other clip, respects the, the right of MoveOn to be involved in this process for—and respects the role that activists in our party…I think she was making an observation about the caucus process.”
A comment about the caucus process? A real comment is an expression of opinion. The Senator from New York was saying, as if it were fact, that MoveOn members were actually intimidating Clinton supporters at caucuses. Is this Bosnia sniper-firing all over again when Clinton said something that wasn’t true? National Communications Director for the Clinton campaign Howard Wolfson did not respond to an email request for an answer.
PHILADELPHIA–If Senator Clinton loses in Pennsylvania this Tuesday, it will not be because Senator Obama has out spent her almost two to one. It will be the negative attacks coming from both campaigns. Both Senators and their campaign staff have lashed out at one another attacking policy and electability. Clashing ads regarding lobbyists, special interests, and health care are flooding the airwaves. Comments on bitterness, religion, and guns and Bosnia sniper-firing have raised questions about both candidates. This days leading up to Tuesday have been marked by both candidates digging deep to attack one another.
Should he win and she lose, it will be because Senator Obama has once again been able to dupe voters in to believing that he is giving them straight talk and honest answers. In reality, he has gotten down to the nitty gritty politics he has railed against and begun to sharpen his attacks on Senator Clinton. At a rally on Independence Mall Friday night that drew 35,000 spectators, Obama attacked Clinton on her old style politics. In my conversations with Pennsylvania voters, Senator Obama’s message of hope and change is still the pervading message in their mind. They have seen his ads and have gotten his literature. They have overlooked Obama’s television ads on lobbyists and yesterday’s ad on healthcare. If any attacks have been noticed it is Senator Clinton’s, reflecting her astoundingly high disapproval ratings. What voters are really clinging onto are the perceptions of each candidate. Obama’s supporters view Obama as a possibility for change and Clinton as untrustworthy. Clinton’s supporters aren’t buying Obama’s soaring rhetoric and promises and believe that Clinton is best able to deliver the solutions they so desperately need.
The ads that hit the airwaves seem to be geared towards the superdelegates in Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. Obama wants to tell the superdelegates that he can play offense after Wednesday’s debate where he had to be defensive. He wants the superdelegates to know that when he is the nominee, he will be able to take on the Republican attack machine and that clashing with Clinton is the best form of practice.
In ads, conference calls, press releases, and statements, the Clinton campaign has tried to tarnish Obama’s positive image. But largely that hasn’t worked to the degree that they need. Obama’s negatives took a hit but not enough to make him unappealing.
Here are a few things to look for Tuesday night:
*Has Senator Clinton maintained her base of white middle class men and women, the less educated and less affluent?
*Has Senator Obama cut into Clinton’s base–the one’s he called “bitter” and the so-called “Reagan Democrats?”
*Whose negative attacks had the most impact on people’s votes?
*For whom did the newly registered Democrats vote?
Moments ago, Senator John McCain said something that I hold to be true. Appearing on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, the Republican nominee said that the debate on Iraq in this election should not be focused on the past but focused on the question of the future. The vote to authorize the Iraq War is over and many years past. Senators can’t go back and change the vote or outcome. We are in Iraq and in the thick of it. Arguing about the war vote does not stop the continual loss of life or deal with the outrageous cost. We cannot cling on our past mistakes. We need to look forward to our next steps and next actions to win in Iraq. Candidates can regret their vote or say they were against it from the beginning. But none of that rhetoric deals with the issues at hand. We live in the here and now. We can’t get caught up in rhetoric of who started to oppose the war first or vote on who opposed it first. If Iraq is a priority for voters, voters need to consider the future and which candidate solves the problems we face in Iraq.
Supporters of Barack Obama are hoping that the recent fallout from Senator Obama’s comments about small town voters will be minimal. In a private fundraiser in San Francisco on April 6, Obama described small town voters in such a way that Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain pounced on his remarks.
“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Anybody who thinks that this incident is just a hiccup in Obama’s campaign is fooling themselves. No matter how honest these statements may be, nobody likes to be called bitter and have their religion and personal beliefs attacked. Yes, voters are frustrated and even bitter that the economy is sinking and the opportunity they once had is no longer available. That, they may accept. But slapping voters’ religion and ideology in the face is incomprehensible to voters. This incident won’t destroy Obama’s candidacy like former Senator George Allen’s “macaca” comments did with his candidacy. It will provide an opportunity for Republicans and Senator Clinton to make the argument that he is not only out of touch with real Americans but also too vulnerable to attack from the opposition.
Senator Clinton sent out the first of many press releases regarding this incident at 6:11pm, Friday, April 11. The subject of almost every successive press release was Obama’s San Francisco remarks. The campaign held a rare Saturday afternoon conference call with reporters in which small town Pennsylvania mayors attacked Obama for implying that small town voters held on to religion because of bitterness and spite.
The Republicans matched Clinton’s attacks. The National Republican Congressional Committee released a statement condemning the remarks but also asked that a Democratic congressman Jim Carney denounce Obama’s remarks. McCain pounded away and an in a speech to the Associated Press’ Annual Meeting, critiqued Obama’s comments, saying that small town voters do not “turn to their religious faith and cultural traditions out of resentment and a feeling of powerlessness to affect the course of government or pursue prosperity.”
The network news programs on NBC, ABC, and CBS led with Obama’s “bitter” comments and devoted a lengthy five minutes to the story. On cable news, when the anchors moved to talk about politics and the 2008 election, they brought up Obama’s comments and the political reaction. It was the subject of conversation on the Sunday political talk shows and it got front page coverage on The New York Times’ Sunday edition.
Obama’s campaign has largely tried to focus the attention on the remarks to the “bitter” side instead of the ones insulting religion, guns, immigration, and trade policy views. It is much easier to rationalize that part over the anti-religion and anti-gun lines. In an email to supporters, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe conveniently left out the other half of Obama’s remarks.
Senator Obama offered a radical re-interpretation of his remarks that force him not only to defend his remarks but to spin them like never before. He knows that it “may have been clumsy” but he meant it as a compliment. He said, “What I was saying is that when economic hardship hits in these communities, what people have is- they’ve got family, they’ve got their faith., they’ve got the traditions that have been passed on to them from generation to generation. Those aren’t bad things.”
Notes on culture and the news from the writers and editors of The News-Letter
RSS 2.0
