Every superdelegate and every Democrat should read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/06/uselections2008.usa1
There's only one winner from this Democratic battle - the Republicans
Clinton and Obama now face months of bitter rancour and division. By November, they will both be damaged goods
Jonathan Freedland
The Guardian
Thursday March 6 2008
“…But that is not the gloomiest thought. For Democrats could be facing a choice between a woman who can win the party nomination but not the presidency and a man who could win the presidency but not his party's nomination. Start with Hillary: it's easy to work out how she could end up as the Democratic standard-bearer. She might win enough over coming weeks to make the delegate count close and she'll brag that she bagged all the big prizes, the New Yorks and Californias, while Obama only got the minnow states. Then it comes down to those party chieftains, the superdelegates who will wield the casting votes. In that contest, twisting arms and calling in long-owed favours, the Clintons would surely beat the newcomer Obama.
Yet not many would bet on Hillary, once nominated, beating McCain. Sure, she has proved her extraordinary resilience. But McCain trumps her on both experience and national security. And the simple presence of her name on the ballot would unite and galvanise Republicans more effectively than anything McCain could say or do himself.
Obama by contrast could reframe the entire contest, presenting McCain as, yes, a great hero - but from an era that has passed. He could tie him to George Bush, running pictures of yesterday's White House endorsement, branding them partners in the disastrous "Bush-McCain" war on Iraq. And Obama has showed that he can bring in the young, independent and suburban voters that Democrats need to win.
Yet to have that chance he has to first win the nomination, and that might be harder for him than would be winning the presidency itself. Going negative erodes his defining positive message; doing nothing allows Hillary to paint him as weak, potential snack-food for the waiting wolves of the Republican party. If it comes down to a stalemate to be settled by the Democratic establishment, he begins with an in-built disadvantage.
So this is the Democrats' plight. In a year that should be theirs, they are caught between a potential winner who can't seem to win - and a probable loser who just refuses to lose.”
It kills me that Hillary makes such a big deal about winning California, New York and New Jersey. These are solidly blue states which will go Dem in the fall no matter who the nominee is. These are not must-win states in the primary. The important states to win in the primary are the swing states, since that is where the fall election will be won or lost.
Here’s an edited excerpt from
“…If we use Time Magazine's map from 2004, there were (broadly defined) eighteen battleground states. Excluding the uncontested primaries in Florida and Michigan, thirteen of those states have had primaries or caucuses thus far. Obama has won six (Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Maine, Minnesota and Colorado) and Hillary has won six (Arizona, Arkansas, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico), although most of Obama's wins in those states came in caucuses and most of Hillary's came in primaries.”
No advantage there!
In fact, the many red states that Obama has won so far bode very well for the fall. It is entirely possible that he will win some of them in the fall. The only red states that Hillary has won are Tennessee and Oklahoma, neither of which are likely to go Dem in the fall. Advantage Obama!
We are going to win Ohio. I'm predicting a 3 point win. I am so impressed with the ground game here in Columbus. Don't forget, Paul Tewes is our state director -- the same guy who brought you Iowa as state director there. The campaign is putting their top guns and their top effort here. They have brought busloads of volunteers here from other states to do canvassing here this weekend. I know of two busloads from DC and another from Illinois that came here to Columbus, and I know there are many more across the state. This will go into the textbooks as one of the best-run campaigns in history! Yes We Can!
Bill meant it when he said, "If we lose Ohio or Texas, it's probably over." If Hillary loses one of them I believe she will concede. If she doesn't I think that the supers would put Barack over the top very soon after March 4, since at that point it will be statistically impossible for Hillary to overtake Barack on pledged delegates. That will be an embarrasment that will not well serve any of Hillary's future ambitions: '12, '16 or Senatorial. Hillary is not Huckabee. She doesn't need any more name recognition and she has a real job waiting for her, which New Yorkers will be impatient for her to take up again.
I just realized why Hillary had trouble describing the most challenging moment of her life: it hasn't happened yet!
It's set for March 5, when she will either concede or self-immolate.
I agree with Frank Rich's piece in the NYT today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The Audacity of Hopelessness
Frank Rich
“. . .What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.”
In response to:By Shai
There is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance on a secret backroom deal.Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.Petition Link
Shai, I'm afraid the petition is too simplistic.
"Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, and their campaigns, are pressuring superdelegates to pledge support to them before Democratic voters in the remaining primaries and caucuses have made their decisions. But Democratic leaders need to let the voters sort out which one of these two remarkable people will lead our party and, we hope, the nation.
After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do what the Democratic Party’s rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters — not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration, where hope can battle with experience and voters can make the right and best choice for our party and our future. Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist, was the chief political consultant to Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10devine.html?ref=opinion
Should we insist that the supers automatically pledge to the winner of the pledged delegates? NO! This race is too close for that. What if Hillary wins by one delegate?
Should the supers automatically pledge to the winner of the popular vote over the course of the primaries? NO! For one thing, that will not be a definite number, since many caucuses do not provide popular vote totals. In addition, this race is too tight to “let the computers decide.” These are the popular vote results from Super Tuesday:
Clinton: 50.2% (7,427,942)Obama: 49.8% (7,370,023)
Now keep in mind, this is just among those voting for Obama or Clinton. If you add in Edwards and Uncommitted, etc., the percentages would change slightly, but the point is the same. That breakdown looks like this:
Clinton: 48.7%Obama: 48.4%Edwards: 2.7%Uncommitted: 0.17%Biden: 0%Richardson: 0%%
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/super_tuesday_the_most_interes.html
So, will we allow the contest to be decided by 0.1% of the popular vote? NO! The supers are going to have to do the job that they were intended to do: to decide who is the most electable candidate with the most benefit to the party and to carefully weigh any negative reaction by the losing candidate’s supporters. Trust me, the choice will be clear. And let’s write Howard Dean asking him to encourage the supers to pledge immediately after the last primary:
http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/chairman
In response to Rick:
Re: Good idea, but just focus on *future states* and pledged delegates
By Rick from Reno, NV
Bonnie, the key for us is winning the pledged delegates-- so long as we have those won, the superdelegates won't defy the popular will.
I don't think there's much point in wasting our resources writing to Superdelegates in states *that have already had primaries*. Much better using our resources to campaign, canvass and win more pledged delegates for Obama in the upcoming primaries and caucuses.
OTOH, for superdelegates in upcoming states, it's definitely a good idea to reach out to them, since they can help Obama with endorsements.
The key is just to have a laser-like focus on the pledged delegates, then the Superdelegates will fall into place. Focus on winning the states!
By Freddy from Ohio
Rick, with all due respect, we need to do both: write to the supers and campaign like crazy. The likelihood now is that the nomination will be up to the supers. We need to put pressure on them now, so that the pressure continues to build. The supers need to know what the stakes are. Many Obama supporters will either support McCain or not vote if Hillary is the nominee. On the other hand, very few Hillary supporters will fail to support Obama if he is the nominee. The sheer volume of our mail will impress the supers with this fact. We can only pray for their sanity when they make their decisions.
In response to:
By Nafisa from Novato, CA 32 minutes ago
I'm a long time loving lurker, daily energized by the passion and commitment expressed here. I've been thinking a lot about the days ahead. I have no doubt that Barack Obama will be our next president. The short term focus has been well addressed--we must phone, canvas and donate to propel him to the nomination. In the long term, I am concerned about the possibility of a brokered convention. I am reminded of the Convention of 1968 (before my time, btw)--the anti-war candidate was brushed aside by the party establishment and Humphrey "won" the nomination only to lose to Nixon. The rest is bleak history. In case the delegate count stays as close as it is, we must back up Barack's assertions that while Clinton's voters will vote for Barack, not all his voters will vote for Clinton.
I propose a two-pronged approach.
1. I have started an online petition for "Obama Only Voters". I have tried to keep the wording in the petition as positive as the spirit of this campaign.
Check it out at
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ObamaOnlyVoters/
Please sign it if you agree and pass it on. The more signatures we have on it by August, the better.
2. We should all start planning to converge on Denver in a show of support for his candidacy in August. Peaceful protest and marches. No riots, please, as took place in the summer of '68. Picture it--the Yes We Can song, signs and crowds knocking on the doors of the convention so that we can be heard and Barack's candidacy can be confirmed. We don't want the Democratic Party to make the same mistakes they did in 1968.
What do you say?
Nafisa, I agree with this post
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/02/why-the-clock-may-favor-obama.aspx
that the calendar sets up very well for Obama. Whether the media know it or not, momentum and money have already swung permanently to Obama. Obama will win almost every February primary and caucus. He will be able to make numerous personal visits to Texas and Ohio, and he should do very well in both states. We would love Obama to win either Texas or Ohio, but the fact is that he does not have to win one of them to win the nomination. He just needs to keep it close enough to continue to run roughly even with Hillary in the delegate count.
Hillary will stay in to the bitter end, but I think that Obama will be fine. He may not win the nomination in the primaries, but the superdelegates are not dummies. They will put Obama over the top just after the last primary. Why? Because the superdelegates want to win the general election, and by early summer it will be crystal clear to everyone but Hillary that Obama has a far better chance to win in November. By then I expect polling to show Obama up ten points on McCain, while Hillary will still be losing.
The situation this year is somewhat similar to 1968, and you can bet the supers will be thinking about that when they consider their options. Here’s a little background on 1968:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention
“The selection of a Presidential nominee was particularly difficult for the Democrats that year, due to the split in the party over the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision not to seek re-election, and Robert Kennedy's assassination. On one side, Senator Eugene McCarthy, D-MN, ran a decidedly anti-war campaign, calling for the immediate withdrawal from the region. On the other side, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who did not participate in any primaries but controlled enough delegates to secure the nomination, called for a policy more in line with President Johnson's, which focused on making any reduction of force contingent on concessions extracted in the Paris Peace Talks.
The Democrats eventually settled on Humphrey, who would lose the election to Richard M. Nixon. The confusion of the convention, and the unhappiness of many liberals with the outcome, led the Democrats to begin reforms of their nominating process, increasing the role of primaries and decreasing the power of party delegates in the selection process.”
The choice will be plain: Hillary for a loss, a likely split in the party (with many Obama supporters gone for good), no coattails and the end of the Party for many years; Obama for the win, a united and expanded party (with most new supporters remaining permanently, especially the youth) and coattails to Hawaii. These will be the clear stakes. However, because we are talking about Democrats we still need to pray for sanity to prevail. Yes we can (be sane)!
Nafisa, I’m an old pragmatist, so I will actually vote against “Thousand-Years” [in Iraq -- not his age!] McCain in November, no matter what. However, I respect the decision of anyone who will not.
I like your convention plan, and I dare say it’s going to happen no matter what. We will need some serious non-violence training, though, because if things go south we could find ourselves in Lincoln Park all over again.
Also, I agree with Archaeology Jim (see above) that we should all email Howard Dean. Here’s the link:
I just bet another $50 on hope!
David wrote his email around 6:30 pm EST saying that we'd raised over $3 million since the polls closed. Well, six hours has gone by and we're at $6,228,121! That's right, tonight we raised a cool half million every hour! Folks, we'll get some press for this tomorrow. Imagine the reaction deep in Hillary's underground lair!
In the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04mon4.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Michelle+Obama+rally&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Andrew Rosenthal said, “Forty-eight hours before the closest thing America has ever had to a national primary, four extraordinary women put on the best campaign rally I’ve seen in 20 years of covering presidential politics.”
Michelle’s speech at the LA rally on February 3 was one of the most powerful, emotional speeches that I have ever heard. She made me cry a couple of times, for good reason. I urge you to view it soon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZiNtTq10i0
I understand why Barack prefers not to follow Michelle’s speeches. What a caring, smart and powerful person Michelle is! What a great example for all of us! What a great White House it will be! What a wonderful world it will be!
FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/04/which-democrat-could-unite-the-gop/
Matt from Madison, Wisconsin writes:Clinton, by far. I’m an independent with Republican leanings, but I would gladly vote for Obama over the rest of the field. Short of a surprise Ron Paul victory, there’s not a chance I’d vote for Hillary. The past looks good compared to the present, but the bitter fighting between parties if there’s another Clinton White House would be more of what we already have. It’s time for a change.
Jo Ann from Iowa writes:Definitely Hillary Clinton. The Republicans have a whole staff that has been working for years on the Clinton attack. They have lots of material. I don’t want to see it. The Republican base is not excited about McCain, but they’ll get very excited about Hillary.
Tom writes:The GOP is chomping at the bit to get at Hillary. The “swift boat” types will make what they did to John Kerry look like a picnic. They will come after her with both barrels. They don’t quite know what to make of Obama, which is only one reason he gets my vote.
Jordan from Kentucky writes:Jack, The answer to this question is the obvious one. Hillary Clinton is as divisive as they come. I manage Barack Obama’s campaign at Murray State University in Kentucky, and I hear of more and more Republicans crossing over to support him every day! It’s not that Hillary isn’t a tried and true Democrat/politician, it’s that Barack Obama is a movement, and you can’t run against that. McCain wouldn’t stand a chance!
Patricia writes:Hillary would unite the Republicans, because their hate of all things Clinton makes them lose their minds.
Greg from Houston writes:Without question, it’s Clinton. Even if there were nobody else running, I’d show up to vote against her. And I’m an independent!
Jenny from New York writes:Jerry Falwell said that Hillary Clinton would unite the Republicans more than the devil himself. That’s the only thing I’ve ever agreed with him on.
From Garrison Keillor's endorsement today:
“. . .and I think it would be amazing just to have a President who can speak the English language. . .”
LOL!!!
It so sad that we and our world has had to endure the extreme embarrassment of a President who can’t put two words together and who is so obviously BELOW AVERAGE that he would never be allowed to live in Lake Wobegon let alone become President.
Hopefully Obama will forever cure us of electing another President or, for that matter, dog catcher who cannot read the label on a cereal box, who cannot inspire to save his life, and who is so clearly a front man and a puppet for powerful interests. We elected GWB because he was the kind of guy we could have a beer with, someone no better than ourselves. That kind of thinking got us someone far worse than ourselves. Obama is far better than most of us, but he inspires us to be like him as much as we can. Now we realize, that’s what we need from our President.
The story with the above headline appeared in today’s New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
First, here's a link to Obama's fact check on this article, which correctly points out major flaws in the article, and that Obama has actually acted quite responsibly:LinkA reminder that the fact check section of this site can be very valuable in answering many charges made against Obama and as well as claims made by other candidates. To get there, click on "Learn" at the left edge of the top menu, then "Know the Facts."
As to the nuclear energy funding of Obama's campaign, it is an unfortunate fact that very little political money is completely clean. The nuclear power connection is a small blemish on Obama. But I really think that this is about the best that journalists and/or Clinton can do. This is their best shot at Obama – their Super Tuesday “O” bomb. Take this story and multiply it 20 times and that is what is waiting for Hillary in the fall.
Here are some comments that put the story in perspective, followed by the links to their sources:
Obama is the largest beneficiary of money from companies that have a stake in nuclear energy's future. The Braidwood plant's owner, Exelon Corp., has donated $275,000 to Obama over his career.Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a co-author on the 2006 bill, is the second-largest recipient. Neither candidate has come out in opposition to nuclear power, unlike their onetime rival, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.. . . Compared with the unprecedented sums of money raised in this campaign, the amount delivered by executives and employees of utilities and other companies that own or are involved in nuclear power plant construction, operation and waste handling is modest. . . . Obama last year raised nearly $266,000, more than Gore and Kerry combined. Clinton raised more than $166,000. Sen. John McCain of Arizona leads Republicans with about $107,000.The bulk of Obama's nuclear energy-related money, $190,000, has come from Exelon's employees. The Chicago-based company is the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator, with 10 facilities representing 20% of the nation's nuclear energy.
Obama is the largest beneficiary of money from companies that have a stake in nuclear energy's future. The Braidwood plant's owner, Exelon Corp., has donated $275,000 to Obama over his career.Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a co-author on the 2006 bill, is the second-largest recipient. Neither candidate has come out in opposition to nuclear power, unlike their onetime rival, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
. . . Compared with the unprecedented sums of money raised in this campaign, the amount delivered by executives and employees of utilities and other companies that own or are involved in nuclear power plant construction, operation and waste handling is modest.
. . . Obama last year raised nearly $266,000, more than Gore and Kerry combined. Clinton raised more than $166,000. Sen. John McCain of Arizona leads Republicans with about $107,000.The bulk of Obama's nuclear energy-related money, $190,000, has come from Exelon's employees. The Chicago-based company is the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator, with 10 facilities representing 20% of the nation's nuclear energy.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nuke3feb03,1,6067597.story
However, Bob Fullerson, the former director of Citizen Alert which helped turn Nevada into an anti-dumping state for nuclear waste, claimed the attacks on Obama's record were unfair."It's completely ludicrous and disingenuous to say that he is soft on Yucca Mountain," Fullerson said on the conference call.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/17/585257.aspx
But Obama's not the only candidate wading deep in a pool of contributions from the nuclear energy industry.Clinton has received $68,650 in 34 contributions from NRG Energy, and the company's chief executive, David Crane, is listed as one of her Hillraisers -- meaning he has brought more than $100,000 in contributions into the campaign. The Clintons' ties to the New Jersey-based power giant run deeper than that, though. The company committed $5 million to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2007, according to the web site of the charity run by former president Bill Clinton. The company's six-year commitment is $175 million. The commitments are not donations to the former president's charity, but promises made by the company to the Global Initiative to spend the money on projects that will "help increase the benefits and reduce the burdens of global interdependence, make a world of more partners and fewer enemies, and give more people the tools they need to build a better future."
But Obama's not the only candidate wading deep in a pool of contributions from the nuclear energy industry.
Clinton has received $68,650 in 34 contributions from NRG Energy, and the company's chief executive, David Crane, is listed as one of her Hillraisers -- meaning he has brought more than $100,000 in contributions into the campaign. The Clintons' ties to the New Jersey-based power giant run deeper than that, though. The company committed $5 million to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2007, according to the web site of the charity run by former president Bill Clinton. The company's six-year commitment is $175 million.
The commitments are not donations to the former president's charity, but promises made by the company to the Global Initiative to spend the money on projects that will "help increase the benefits and reduce the burdens of global interdependence, make a world of more partners and fewer enemies, and give more people the tools they need to build a better future."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/for_both_clinton_and_obama_nuc.html?hpid=topnews
Part of Obama's Exelon connection may demonstrate old-fashioned ethnic politics as much as corporate connections. Rogers and Clark are part of Illinois' black elite and would probably back Obama no matter what their business interests.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.hancock25jan25,0,4656523.column
I give Obama the benefit of the doubt on that one. I am not concerned about his character or ethics, they are both top-notch.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/3/02225/86830
If you haven't seen the amazing "Yes We Can Song" by will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas and Jesse Dylan (Bob's son), please see it now. If you've seen it already, see it again!
www.yeswecansong.com
Here's a little background on it:
ABC News Story
Polls are an inescapable part of politics. Those of us who follow political news closely are not about to quit looking at the polls. We should all get used to them. Like it or not, polls are an integral part of the political story for any election. They are not going away because you ignore them. Granted they can be very far wrong, but New Hampshire and South Carolina were anomalies, not the norm.
Following the news (and the polls) is something that most of us Obama bloggers do. Of course, it’s not all we do. I’m working for Obama’s victory, too. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, we can!
