The Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been on a media offensive this past week. He's made three major appearances since Friday, winding up on Monday with a speech at Washington's National Press Club. The reviews are, to put it mildly, mixed.
The Reverend Wright was the pastor for 20 years for Senator Barack Obama and his family in Chicago. When portions (referred to now in the media lexicon as "snippets") of Rev. Wright's sermons hit YouTube and the rest of the Internet, the nation was astounded. The most common adjective used to describe them was "incendiary." His most famous quote was that African-Americans shouldn't sing "God Bless America," but rather because of the nation's tortured racial past, sing, "God Damn America." There was plenty more that would anger a lot of voters.
In a speech soon after these remarks broke, Sen. Obama tried to distance himself from Rev. Wright's remarks without distancing himself from Rev. Wright or his church. It was a very fine line and for a while, the speech served to quell criticism. But now, after Sen. Obama lost a critical primary in Pennsylvania to his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, this recent media blitz by Rev. Wright is threatening to make life a whole lot worse for Sen. Obama's campaign.
In his remarks in Washington, the Rev. Wright refused to back off or apologize for any of his previous remarks although he did try to put them in some kind of context. But the appearance came off more like a circus with a crowd cheering his every statement and any nuances lost in the rush to play back the sound bites. He said that any criticism of his remarks is not aimed at him but at the black church in general.
The consensus online and in the nation's press was that this was not helping Senator Obama and it certainly did not appear as if the Rev. Wright is in a mood to help him at all. The view from many analysts is that just as the Rev. Wright controversy was beginning to die down, these appearances will only inflame it even more, and threatens to engulf Sen. Obama within it.
Senator Clinton has been very circumspect in her remarks on the Rev. Wright, saying that if she were a member of Rev. Wright's church, she would have left, but she then criticized Republicans for "politicizing" the matter. Not exactly hard hitting stuff. For his part, the likely Republican Party nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said, it was "beyond belief" that Rev. Wright, in a speech on Sunday, offered that the United States was acting like "Al Qaeda under a different color flag."
Republicans in North Carolina (a state where a critical primary will be held next week) are running an ad criticizing Rev. Wright, and by extension, Senator Obama. The ad has been denounced by Senator McCain but will run anyway.
These developments are going to put an extreme amount of pressure on Sen. Obama to disown Rev. Wright in more forceful terms than he has in the past, and possibly, even leave the church. This is what some analysts are suggesting when they say that Senator Obama has to pull a "Sister Souljah moment." A "Sister Souljah moment " is political shorthand for a politician issuing a strong public condemnation of a group preferably in front of the group itself.
It refers specifically to the 1992 scolding by then Governor Bill Clinton during his campaign for president when he told an African-American organization (Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition) that remarks made by hip hop artist "Sister Souljah" (Lisa Williamson) about "black people killing white people" could have been made in reverse by white racist David Duke.
Gov. Clinton was criticized severely by Jesse Jackson, Sister Souljah, and others, but gained media support as someone who would "stand up" to such behavior. It tended to help Gov. Clinton among moderate and centrist Democrats during the campaign. While there was some initial fallout in the black community, eventually he ended up with the vast majority of black votes.
If Sen. Obama did denounce and disown the Rev. Wright, he would probably end the controversy and maybe even make gains among the white working class and senior age voters he is currently losing to Sen. Clinton. But he also risks losing (I think to a greater degree then Gov. Clinton did in 1992) the nearly monolithic support he is getting in the African-American community for his presidential run.
He hasn't always received that support. In fact, when the campaign started, most African-Americans were backing Senator Hillary Clinton out of respect to President Bill Clinton (who became a favorite of African-American voters) and because they thought that Sen. Obama stood no chance of getting the nomination.
But after the Iowa caucus and the subsequent victories of Senator Obama, black support flocked to him and has helped propel him into the lead for the Democratic nomination. A public rebuke of Rev. Wright, a lá Bill Clinton's put-down of Sister Souljah," could threaten that support. It's unclear yet what the political calculations would be in terms of gaining support from white moderate voters to offset an expected loss among African-Americans.
If it did happen, it would be ugly and bitter. Sources indicate that privately, the Obama campaign is furious with the Rev. Wright for launching this media blitz now as the controversy was beginning to dim (not fade away). This will put Senator Obama on the defensive yet again and he will attempt to thread the needle between walking away and maintaining his relationship with the Rev. Wright.
The Rev. Wright isn't making it easy on the candidate. Let's see what the polls in Indiana, and more importantly, North Carolina, say in a couple of days.
April 28, 2008
April 24, 2008
Pennsylvania Consensus
The fallout from the Pennsylvania Primary on Tuesday night, April 22, is continuing. The American media is now ginning up stories about Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the leader in the Democratic Party's presidential race that would have been unthinkable months ago.
"Is Obama Electable?" went one; "Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?" went another. The current "narrative," which is the media-enforced storyline at a given time, is that Senator Obama has not done well with traditional voters in the Democratic Party-union members, women, Catholics, Jews, the elderly, downscale economic workers. While he has brought new, younger voters into his camp along with his base consisting of highly educated, highly paid working professionals and African-American voters, they may not be enough to guarantee him victory in November over Sen. John McCain, the likely nominee of the Republican Party.
Senator Obama is also being painted more and more as a "liberal" Democrat, and less the post-racial non-partisan candidate and more of a traditional doctinaire liberal.
Senator Obama's rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, cut into his popular vote lead and only slightly dented his lead in delegates. According to RealClearPolitics.com, Senator Obama is ahead in delegates by 131, and in the popular vote (in all these primaries and causes) by about 500,000. Senator Clinton is making the case that if you count the disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida, she would actually be ahead in the popular vote contest.
That is the fear of many Democratic Party professionals-the split decision: Senator Obama ahead in delegates while Senator Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. While most analysts believe that will not happen, you never know in American politics. And that is one reason why Senator Clinton is not leaving the race-you never know.
This past month has been hard on Senator Obama. The reverend of the church he long attended, Jeremiah Wright, was a You Tube star preaching invective about America that would be more at home in North Korea than Illinois; then a comment that hard economic times made poor downscale voters "bitter" which led them to "cling" to things like their guns, their religion, and attitudes that those in Senator Obama's class would never begin to consider holding. Then there was the Pennsylvania debate where the moderators launched a45-minute assault on these questions and more.
It was the first time that Senator Obama really had to face a skeptical media, not the one which gushed over his every move and speech and reported how they felt "tingling" in their legs just watching him. And Senator Obama seemed unprepared and irritated that he would have to answer such questions. Another example bubbled up through the blogosphere in Pennsylvania where he was asked a question in a diner about these sorts of issues, and he said, exasperated, "Can't I just eat my waffle?" Ouch. This is not the report of a "Happy Warrior" ready to answer questions from one and all with a smiling face. This is not an approach to win hearts and minds either.
Additionally, there will be further questions on Senator Obama's associations with former radical bomber William Ayers, and Mr. Ayers' wife, Bernadine Dohrn. Mr. Ayers was a radical from the 1960s involved with a group called the Weather Underground, which set bombs off including one in the U.S. Capitol. Ms. Dohrn was part of a group that committed an armed robbery in which a security guard and two police officers were shot to death. She refused to testify against a confederate and served time in prison.
Both turned themselves in the 1980s, and because of prosecutorial misconduct, all charges against Bill Ayers were dropped.
Senator Obama has said that his association with Bill Ayers is one between him and, as he put it, "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and that, "…knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."
But most American voters, save very liberal ones who find nothing in the relationship untoward, are going to question why Senator Obama hasn't been more critical of Bill Ayers (who held a fundraiser for him in the senator's earliest political days) and his activities. This, in the eyes of many political analysts, is something that could come to haunt Senator Obama. I think this could be an ongoing issue, despite Senator Obama's supporters' gripes about it, that could drain support the longer it goes unaddressed.
When this is added to the Jeremiah Wright comments, and other recent gaffes in the Obama campaign, it does start to hurt him. It takes away from a persona that was almost absent in political baggage and now dumps a whole lot of luggage on him. The shine and luster have vanished in the hand-to-hand political combat of a presidential primary. He is looking less like the post-politics person who was going to bring us together, and more like a typical politician, evading questions, and coming up with tortured compromises to difficult situations.
Not that Senator Clinton benefits directly. Her veracity (the story of her landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, proved by You Tube to be false) is questioned by a large group of Americans but recent press reporting indicates that Democrats respect her fight for the nomination and most Democrats polled in Pennsylvania don't want her to get out of the race, at least not yet. Voters also hold high negative ratings for her but she is hanging on in the race and vows not to go away.
What may be very troubling for Democrats is that segments of each candidate's supporters say they will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee if their choice loses. While most political experts say this just reflects the emotions of the moment, and that they will come back to vote for the party's standard bearer, even if a small minority carries out this threat, it could be harmful for the Democrats chances in the fall.
The smart money says that Senator Obama, flush with cash compared to the money-starved campaign of Senator Clinton, is still the favorite to get the nomination because of his delegate lead and the fervent support of his backers. That may be, but the next few elections in Indiana and North Carolina, particularly, will have a lot to say about the campaigns of both candidates.
No matter that party officials want an end to the bloodletting, the two seemed destined to slug it out until, as former President Bill Clinton used to say as a candidate, "the last dog dies." The consensus now after Pennsylvania is that Senator Obama may still be the nominee, but it is not completely inconceivable that Senator Clinton could still somehow, snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. And the Senator Obama who may win in August will not be the same Senator Obama who was dazzling the political world in March.
No matter who wins, they will face a tough campaign for the White House as polls now suggest. It won't be a cakewalk for anyone in what has turned into, for the Democrats, one of the most bruising campaigns in recent party history.
"Is Obama Electable?" went one; "Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?" went another. The current "narrative," which is the media-enforced storyline at a given time, is that Senator Obama has not done well with traditional voters in the Democratic Party-union members, women, Catholics, Jews, the elderly, downscale economic workers. While he has brought new, younger voters into his camp along with his base consisting of highly educated, highly paid working professionals and African-American voters, they may not be enough to guarantee him victory in November over Sen. John McCain, the likely nominee of the Republican Party.
Senator Obama is also being painted more and more as a "liberal" Democrat, and less the post-racial non-partisan candidate and more of a traditional doctinaire liberal.
Senator Obama's rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, cut into his popular vote lead and only slightly dented his lead in delegates. According to RealClearPolitics.com, Senator Obama is ahead in delegates by 131, and in the popular vote (in all these primaries and causes) by about 500,000. Senator Clinton is making the case that if you count the disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida, she would actually be ahead in the popular vote contest.
That is the fear of many Democratic Party professionals-the split decision: Senator Obama ahead in delegates while Senator Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. While most analysts believe that will not happen, you never know in American politics. And that is one reason why Senator Clinton is not leaving the race-you never know.
This past month has been hard on Senator Obama. The reverend of the church he long attended, Jeremiah Wright, was a You Tube star preaching invective about America that would be more at home in North Korea than Illinois; then a comment that hard economic times made poor downscale voters "bitter" which led them to "cling" to things like their guns, their religion, and attitudes that those in Senator Obama's class would never begin to consider holding. Then there was the Pennsylvania debate where the moderators launched a45-minute assault on these questions and more.
It was the first time that Senator Obama really had to face a skeptical media, not the one which gushed over his every move and speech and reported how they felt "tingling" in their legs just watching him. And Senator Obama seemed unprepared and irritated that he would have to answer such questions. Another example bubbled up through the blogosphere in Pennsylvania where he was asked a question in a diner about these sorts of issues, and he said, exasperated, "Can't I just eat my waffle?" Ouch. This is not the report of a "Happy Warrior" ready to answer questions from one and all with a smiling face. This is not an approach to win hearts and minds either.
Additionally, there will be further questions on Senator Obama's associations with former radical bomber William Ayers, and Mr. Ayers' wife, Bernadine Dohrn. Mr. Ayers was a radical from the 1960s involved with a group called the Weather Underground, which set bombs off including one in the U.S. Capitol. Ms. Dohrn was part of a group that committed an armed robbery in which a security guard and two police officers were shot to death. She refused to testify against a confederate and served time in prison.
Both turned themselves in the 1980s, and because of prosecutorial misconduct, all charges against Bill Ayers were dropped.
Senator Obama has said that his association with Bill Ayers is one between him and, as he put it, "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and that, "…knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."
But most American voters, save very liberal ones who find nothing in the relationship untoward, are going to question why Senator Obama hasn't been more critical of Bill Ayers (who held a fundraiser for him in the senator's earliest political days) and his activities. This, in the eyes of many political analysts, is something that could come to haunt Senator Obama. I think this could be an ongoing issue, despite Senator Obama's supporters' gripes about it, that could drain support the longer it goes unaddressed.
When this is added to the Jeremiah Wright comments, and other recent gaffes in the Obama campaign, it does start to hurt him. It takes away from a persona that was almost absent in political baggage and now dumps a whole lot of luggage on him. The shine and luster have vanished in the hand-to-hand political combat of a presidential primary. He is looking less like the post-politics person who was going to bring us together, and more like a typical politician, evading questions, and coming up with tortured compromises to difficult situations.
Not that Senator Clinton benefits directly. Her veracity (the story of her landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, proved by You Tube to be false) is questioned by a large group of Americans but recent press reporting indicates that Democrats respect her fight for the nomination and most Democrats polled in Pennsylvania don't want her to get out of the race, at least not yet. Voters also hold high negative ratings for her but she is hanging on in the race and vows not to go away.
What may be very troubling for Democrats is that segments of each candidate's supporters say they will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee if their choice loses. While most political experts say this just reflects the emotions of the moment, and that they will come back to vote for the party's standard bearer, even if a small minority carries out this threat, it could be harmful for the Democrats chances in the fall.
The smart money says that Senator Obama, flush with cash compared to the money-starved campaign of Senator Clinton, is still the favorite to get the nomination because of his delegate lead and the fervent support of his backers. That may be, but the next few elections in Indiana and North Carolina, particularly, will have a lot to say about the campaigns of both candidates.
No matter that party officials want an end to the bloodletting, the two seemed destined to slug it out until, as former President Bill Clinton used to say as a candidate, "the last dog dies." The consensus now after Pennsylvania is that Senator Obama may still be the nominee, but it is not completely inconceivable that Senator Clinton could still somehow, snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. And the Senator Obama who may win in August will not be the same Senator Obama who was dazzling the political world in March.
No matter who wins, they will face a tough campaign for the White House as polls now suggest. It won't be a cakewalk for anyone in what has turned into, for the Democrats, one of the most bruising campaigns in recent party history.
April 22, 2008
Sen Clinton Wins
With about two thirds of the vote in, Senator Hillary Clinton has won the Democratic Party primary in the state of Pennsylvania. She currently has an eight point margin. But the places where the votes have been trickling in so far indicate that she may be able to increase that margin.
Most analysts believed that she needed a win in double digits to persuade a significant number of so-called "super delegates," that is, non-elected delegates given voting privileges in the party's convention due to their status as elected officials or party leaders, to support her rather than Sen. Barack Obama, the current leader in delegates and popular votes.
It is possible that Senator Clinton could win by a margin of around 150,000 votes or more but that would not put her in the lead and most analysts believe she will not overtake Senator Obama in the remaining contests.
However, it does freeze the situation in place as the super delegates who have not committed publicly to a candidate will stay on the fence. Some may even have some unspoken doubts about Senator Obama and his failure to win in states with a traditional voter base for the Democratic Party--downscale economic workers, women, and labor union members. Senator Obama's core support comes from Democrats who are affluent, the highly-educated, professional, information society workers, and African-Americans.
If he cannot win those Democrats over in states like Pennsylvania, he may have a hard time winning the presidency. Many Democratic activists say the party will unite behind the eventual winner no matter who it is but even if a small number of the losing candidate's supporters stay home, or vote for the Republican candidate, it could prove costly for the Democrats.
So it appears the race continues as we await the final margin of victory for Senator Clinton.
And in tonight's Republican Primary in Pennsylvania, Sen. John McCain has won. Senator McCain is the presumptive nominee of his party.
UPDATE: Almost 80 percent of the vote in and the margin is still 8.
Most analysts believed that she needed a win in double digits to persuade a significant number of so-called "super delegates," that is, non-elected delegates given voting privileges in the party's convention due to their status as elected officials or party leaders, to support her rather than Sen. Barack Obama, the current leader in delegates and popular votes.
It is possible that Senator Clinton could win by a margin of around 150,000 votes or more but that would not put her in the lead and most analysts believe she will not overtake Senator Obama in the remaining contests.
However, it does freeze the situation in place as the super delegates who have not committed publicly to a candidate will stay on the fence. Some may even have some unspoken doubts about Senator Obama and his failure to win in states with a traditional voter base for the Democratic Party--downscale economic workers, women, and labor union members. Senator Obama's core support comes from Democrats who are affluent, the highly-educated, professional, information society workers, and African-Americans.
If he cannot win those Democrats over in states like Pennsylvania, he may have a hard time winning the presidency. Many Democratic activists say the party will unite behind the eventual winner no matter who it is but even if a small number of the losing candidate's supporters stay home, or vote for the Republican candidate, it could prove costly for the Democrats.
So it appears the race continues as we await the final margin of victory for Senator Clinton.
And in tonight's Republican Primary in Pennsylvania, Sen. John McCain has won. Senator McCain is the presumptive nominee of his party.
UPDATE: Almost 80 percent of the vote in and the margin is still 8.
Waiting for Pennsylvania
The long wait is over. I'll be blogging about the important Pennsylvania Primary in the Democratic Party which is being held as I write. Results should start coming in about three-four hours from now (0100 UTC).
Can't predict this one as polls are all over the place. The big thing here is if Senator Hillary Clinton does win the primary, how big her margin is.
She will likely stay in the race no matter what it is but the margin will be significant.
C U L8r
Can't predict this one as polls are all over the place. The big thing here is if Senator Hillary Clinton does win the primary, how big her margin is.
She will likely stay in the race no matter what it is but the margin will be significant.
C U L8r
April 17, 2008
Debate Over the Debate
The consensus among pundits concerning last night's presidential debate in Philadelphia between the front-runner for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, who trails him, was twofold.
First, it was not a great night for Senator Obama. He seemed tired, hesitant, and did not turn in a good performance. While you could argue he "lost," Senator Clinton didn't "win" either. Both gave and got throughout the encounter, but it came down to those who believe Senator Clinton isn't trustworthy (think Bosnia) versus those who thought Senator Obama was slippery (think "bitter" comments and more).
Additionally, those who were supporting Senator Obama thought the questioning in the debate by American Broadcasting Company (ABC) anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused on trivial gossip, according to one critic. Their complaints focused on the opening 45 minutes in which Senator Obama seemed to be pummeled by the two network anchors, answering questions on his comments that a poor economy led Americans living in small towns to be "bitter" and "cling" to such things as their religion, gun ownership, as well as negative feelings on trade, immigration, and gay marriage.
They also brought up Senator Obama's association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose incendiary comments on America were made while Sen. Obama was a long-time member of Rev. Wright's church. They questioned Sen. Obama's decision not to wear a flag lapel (like many politicians do) and a new item-his association in Chicago with a former 1960s radical named William Ayers. A flag popped up recently on Senator Obama's lapel, but not last night.
Senator Clinton came in for her share of hard questioning about her account of a trip to Bosnia she took as First Lady in which she said that she landed under sniper fire-a story easily debunked by video posted on YouTube.
Some observations?
The two candidates are extremely close on most positions; the differences are minimal. And Senator Obama, as front-runner, is at this point, the natural target of journalists. Senator Clinton was the target late last year and I can recall her complaining about unfair questioning by journalists and giving a "pass" to Senator Obama. But now the positions are reversed, and Senator Obama is the target. This is only natural in presidential campaigns.
The questions were not off base, IMHO, and showed a lot more about Senator Obama's character and beliefs (which we really don't know much about) than drawn out discussions on the nuances of health care. Americans are concerned about whom their candidates associate with and what they truly believe, not what policy positions are dreamed up in the campaign press shop. Does Sen. Obama really think that people in small towns "cling" to religion because of poor economic times? If they were richer, would they give it up? He has tried to moderate those remarks in recent days but somehow has made his actual belief fuzzier.
And what about Senator Obama's associations with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers? Are dots starting to be connected?
Senator Clinton's veracity, according to polls, is also a viable issue. Many Americans, at least those in recent surveys, said they have problems believing what she says. She, too, had to answer some tough questions about this, and she did-without whining about the types of questions she has been asked.
Other writers, not me, have noted that supporters of Senator Obama feel as if he should not be asked any tough questions at all, particularly about his past. In fact, they say, all that he should be asked are questions in which he can criticize Senator Clinton and Senator John McCain, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.
Part of this process-the presidential primary process-is to toughen our candidates because the challenges they will face, no matter who is elected, will be immense.
And I have to point this out: Senator McCain has answered every question thrown to him until reporters tire of them; Senator Clinton, after some complaining early in the cycle, has certainly stood in there and taken what was thrown at her.
I wonder if voters are beginning to sense vulnerability in Senator Obama in taking "tough" questions, no matter what they are. During one press conference, when "tough" questions were hurled at him, he left the stage after taking one or two. He generally seems annoyed at the prospect and has said since the debate that the questions he got in Philadelphia were, "… the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with."
While polls haven't reflected the outcome and effects of last night's debate yet, the Democratic voters seem to be in an unusual spot. While Senator Obama still leads in national polls, he trails in Pennsylvania (and leads in two states that will vote soon after Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina). If voters have doubts about him, they also express doubts about Senator Clinton. What to do?
If Senator Clinton wins Tuesday night, she stays in the race, and why not? The image of political sainthood that was bestowed upon Senator Obama early on has been slowly whittled away. Last night he looked, like, well, a politician. He has been on defense for the past few weeks and last night was another example that he is human.
It may not make any difference but the Democratic race is in an odd place. A favorite with more questions being asked about him, and his opponent, who is not a favorite but not an also-ran either.
Superdelegates, those delegates who are not elected and are free to vote as they wish, must be wondering which candidate they will support. It is becoming a more difficult decision each day.
Pennsylvania on Tuesday may be an interesting place to be.
First, it was not a great night for Senator Obama. He seemed tired, hesitant, and did not turn in a good performance. While you could argue he "lost," Senator Clinton didn't "win" either. Both gave and got throughout the encounter, but it came down to those who believe Senator Clinton isn't trustworthy (think Bosnia) versus those who thought Senator Obama was slippery (think "bitter" comments and more).
Additionally, those who were supporting Senator Obama thought the questioning in the debate by American Broadcasting Company (ABC) anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused on trivial gossip, according to one critic. Their complaints focused on the opening 45 minutes in which Senator Obama seemed to be pummeled by the two network anchors, answering questions on his comments that a poor economy led Americans living in small towns to be "bitter" and "cling" to such things as their religion, gun ownership, as well as negative feelings on trade, immigration, and gay marriage.
They also brought up Senator Obama's association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose incendiary comments on America were made while Sen. Obama was a long-time member of Rev. Wright's church. They questioned Sen. Obama's decision not to wear a flag lapel (like many politicians do) and a new item-his association in Chicago with a former 1960s radical named William Ayers. A flag popped up recently on Senator Obama's lapel, but not last night.
Senator Clinton came in for her share of hard questioning about her account of a trip to Bosnia she took as First Lady in which she said that she landed under sniper fire-a story easily debunked by video posted on YouTube.
Some observations?
The two candidates are extremely close on most positions; the differences are minimal. And Senator Obama, as front-runner, is at this point, the natural target of journalists. Senator Clinton was the target late last year and I can recall her complaining about unfair questioning by journalists and giving a "pass" to Senator Obama. But now the positions are reversed, and Senator Obama is the target. This is only natural in presidential campaigns.
The questions were not off base, IMHO, and showed a lot more about Senator Obama's character and beliefs (which we really don't know much about) than drawn out discussions on the nuances of health care. Americans are concerned about whom their candidates associate with and what they truly believe, not what policy positions are dreamed up in the campaign press shop. Does Sen. Obama really think that people in small towns "cling" to religion because of poor economic times? If they were richer, would they give it up? He has tried to moderate those remarks in recent days but somehow has made his actual belief fuzzier.
And what about Senator Obama's associations with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers? Are dots starting to be connected?
Senator Clinton's veracity, according to polls, is also a viable issue. Many Americans, at least those in recent surveys, said they have problems believing what she says. She, too, had to answer some tough questions about this, and she did-without whining about the types of questions she has been asked.
Other writers, not me, have noted that supporters of Senator Obama feel as if he should not be asked any tough questions at all, particularly about his past. In fact, they say, all that he should be asked are questions in which he can criticize Senator Clinton and Senator John McCain, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.
Part of this process-the presidential primary process-is to toughen our candidates because the challenges they will face, no matter who is elected, will be immense.
And I have to point this out: Senator McCain has answered every question thrown to him until reporters tire of them; Senator Clinton, after some complaining early in the cycle, has certainly stood in there and taken what was thrown at her.
I wonder if voters are beginning to sense vulnerability in Senator Obama in taking "tough" questions, no matter what they are. During one press conference, when "tough" questions were hurled at him, he left the stage after taking one or two. He generally seems annoyed at the prospect and has said since the debate that the questions he got in Philadelphia were, "… the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with."
While polls haven't reflected the outcome and effects of last night's debate yet, the Democratic voters seem to be in an unusual spot. While Senator Obama still leads in national polls, he trails in Pennsylvania (and leads in two states that will vote soon after Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina). If voters have doubts about him, they also express doubts about Senator Clinton. What to do?
If Senator Clinton wins Tuesday night, she stays in the race, and why not? The image of political sainthood that was bestowed upon Senator Obama early on has been slowly whittled away. Last night he looked, like, well, a politician. He has been on defense for the past few weeks and last night was another example that he is human.
It may not make any difference but the Democratic race is in an odd place. A favorite with more questions being asked about him, and his opponent, who is not a favorite but not an also-ran either.
Superdelegates, those delegates who are not elected and are free to vote as they wish, must be wondering which candidate they will support. It is becoming a more difficult decision each day.
Pennsylvania on Tuesday may be an interesting place to be.
April 16, 2008
Debate Tonight
A crucial debate takes place this evening in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia is the largest city in the state that just happens to be holding the next primary election for the Democratic Party on April 22.
The debate, between leader Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, and Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, comes slightly less than a week before the voting, and after the appearance of Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker before Congress to discuss Iraq, various economic news, and the Pope's visit to America.
But the main subject of tonight's debate (as it has been all week) has been the "bitter" remarks made by Sen. Obama during a fundraiser April 6 in San Francisco. There, in a house on "billionaire's row," the frontrunner opined that voters in small-town America were made "bitter" by the lack of economic opportunity they have, and that made them "cling" to such things as religion, the ownership of guns, anti-immigrant feelings, and a lot more.
The remarks ignited a firestorm of opposition but so far, polls indicate that the race essentially stands where it was several weeks ago-a slight lead for Senator Clinton, certainly less than ten points. If that holds, say the pundits, given all that has gone on, then it will be a "victory" for Senator Obama in that he beat the expectations that he was going to be crushed.
Even though she "won," it would be considered a "loss" for Senator Clinton because analysts believe she should have won by a lot more, at least a margin in double digits, the higher the better.
I have no great source feeding me information but I would be surprised if the "bitter" comments have little effect on the race. I know what the polls say but I think when people get in the polling booth, it may be more of an issue than pundits think.
What is keeping the race close is that Senator Clinton has had trouble of her own. Her speeches saying she landed "under fire" in Bosnia were proved by videos on You Tube to be, and this is understated, an "exaggeration." This hasn't helped her and you can see this reflected in additional polling.
But if she does win the state, even by 5-6 points, her campaign will keep going into the next states of Indiana and North Carolina. Senator Clinton has a slight lead in Indiana, according to surveys, while Senator Obama enjoys a double-digit lead in North Carolina.
What this long campaign is showing is that, rather than the early claims that both candidates are terrific, and isn't this long race just swell, both candidates have assets and liabilities that are very real and could, in the worse case scenario, bring each down.
The salad days of Senator Obama and the constant reports of women swooning at his speeches are over. His negatives have risen and he has come down to earth. Senator Clinton has also seen a rise in her negatives as well. Some supporters of each candidate say they will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee if it is not the one they currently want to win.
Additionally, the non-elected "super delegates" are being pressured to unite behind a nominee long in advance of the Democratic Convention in August. There are reports bouncing around that those super delegates who remain uncommitted (there are some 350 of 800 give or take) are being asked to declare their support for the leader in pledged or elected delegates and the popular vote after the Democratic primaries are over by early June.
This would signal a winner (presumably Senator Obama) and then the party could unite behind that candidate and begin the general election campaign against likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. While the race between the likely Republican nominee and the two Democrats is remarkably close, most analysts think the Democratic nominee would get an instant boost and immediately go out to a 10-point lead in preference surveys.
But a point is being made that to date, these uncommitted super delegates have held off on an endorsement because of concerns with both candidates. Has Senator Obama been painted as the candidate of the Democrats' liberal elite? Is Senator Clinton now too damaged by her Bosnia fiasco to be believed? Polls indicate that rank and file Democrats want the race to continue so there is obviously some uncertainty still remaining in the party.
The debate tonight could be telling, but so far, they have been fairly tame affairs with the ball moving little. The only debate that ever changed things was the one, coincidentally, in Philadelphia late last year when Sen. Clinton prevaricated (for days) on whether or not she would grant drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants (a pet project of former Governor of New York Elliot Spitzer).
That is when the campaign of Senator Obama began to take off.
But since then, the debates really haven't done much. Will they tonight? We'll find out….
The debate, between leader Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, and Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, comes slightly less than a week before the voting, and after the appearance of Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker before Congress to discuss Iraq, various economic news, and the Pope's visit to America.
But the main subject of tonight's debate (as it has been all week) has been the "bitter" remarks made by Sen. Obama during a fundraiser April 6 in San Francisco. There, in a house on "billionaire's row," the frontrunner opined that voters in small-town America were made "bitter" by the lack of economic opportunity they have, and that made them "cling" to such things as religion, the ownership of guns, anti-immigrant feelings, and a lot more.
The remarks ignited a firestorm of opposition but so far, polls indicate that the race essentially stands where it was several weeks ago-a slight lead for Senator Clinton, certainly less than ten points. If that holds, say the pundits, given all that has gone on, then it will be a "victory" for Senator Obama in that he beat the expectations that he was going to be crushed.
Even though she "won," it would be considered a "loss" for Senator Clinton because analysts believe she should have won by a lot more, at least a margin in double digits, the higher the better.
I have no great source feeding me information but I would be surprised if the "bitter" comments have little effect on the race. I know what the polls say but I think when people get in the polling booth, it may be more of an issue than pundits think.
What is keeping the race close is that Senator Clinton has had trouble of her own. Her speeches saying she landed "under fire" in Bosnia were proved by videos on You Tube to be, and this is understated, an "exaggeration." This hasn't helped her and you can see this reflected in additional polling.
But if she does win the state, even by 5-6 points, her campaign will keep going into the next states of Indiana and North Carolina. Senator Clinton has a slight lead in Indiana, according to surveys, while Senator Obama enjoys a double-digit lead in North Carolina.
What this long campaign is showing is that, rather than the early claims that both candidates are terrific, and isn't this long race just swell, both candidates have assets and liabilities that are very real and could, in the worse case scenario, bring each down.
The salad days of Senator Obama and the constant reports of women swooning at his speeches are over. His negatives have risen and he has come down to earth. Senator Clinton has also seen a rise in her negatives as well. Some supporters of each candidate say they will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee if it is not the one they currently want to win.
Additionally, the non-elected "super delegates" are being pressured to unite behind a nominee long in advance of the Democratic Convention in August. There are reports bouncing around that those super delegates who remain uncommitted (there are some 350 of 800 give or take) are being asked to declare their support for the leader in pledged or elected delegates and the popular vote after the Democratic primaries are over by early June.
This would signal a winner (presumably Senator Obama) and then the party could unite behind that candidate and begin the general election campaign against likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. While the race between the likely Republican nominee and the two Democrats is remarkably close, most analysts think the Democratic nominee would get an instant boost and immediately go out to a 10-point lead in preference surveys.
But a point is being made that to date, these uncommitted super delegates have held off on an endorsement because of concerns with both candidates. Has Senator Obama been painted as the candidate of the Democrats' liberal elite? Is Senator Clinton now too damaged by her Bosnia fiasco to be believed? Polls indicate that rank and file Democrats want the race to continue so there is obviously some uncertainty still remaining in the party.
The debate tonight could be telling, but so far, they have been fairly tame affairs with the ball moving little. The only debate that ever changed things was the one, coincidentally, in Philadelphia late last year when Sen. Clinton prevaricated (for days) on whether or not she would grant drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants (a pet project of former Governor of New York Elliot Spitzer).
That is when the campaign of Senator Obama began to take off.
But since then, the debates really haven't done much. Will they tonight? We'll find out….
April 13, 2008
Obama's Comments About Pennsylvania
The latest political firestorm is erupting into flames at a time when Barack Obama doesn't need it. On April 6, in San Francisco at a fundraiser, Obama, speaking about the reaction of Pennsylvania residents to the U.S. economy, said:
"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."
And that's only part of it.
The comments and video were posted on a liberal blog site with the poster warning that Obama shouldn't talk that way about what the poster referred to as "working class Americans."
The blogosophere is erupting and the consensus is that is a major mistake by the Obama campaign, perhaps even worse than the Jeremiah Wright videos. As has been pointed out, this was not said by Obama's preacher but by the man himself. It was also said to a group of San Francisco political types whose image across the country is that of an elite liberal community who, fairly or unfairly, are tagged as holding those not like them in contempt.
Politically, it damages Obama heavily in Pennsylvania especially among those who:
a) own guns and like to hunt
b) are religious
c) have questions about illegal immigration
d) question US free trade policies
Obama is saying the downturn in the US economy is so bad that it is driving people to those awful behaviors described above. This has been described as the typical view of the upscale liberals who have flocked to Senator Obama's campaign. You can also read it in books like "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank, which wonders why voters like these haven't been voting Democratic, and ascribes at least some of the reasons to the very sentiments expressed by Obama in San Francisco.
It makes Obama comes across as an elitist who disparages people who hunt, go to church, and believe that drivers licenses should not be issued to illegal immigrants (for example) or that NAFTA may not be such a great deal...in other words, people who make up a good deal of voters in Pennsylvania and other industrial states. And by the way, hasn't Senator Obama himself questioned NAFTA?
He has attempted to amend his comments saying he could have put the sentiment better, but that's the problem. If this is what he truly believes, he is going to run into some major trouble ahead.
Already the Clinton and McCain campaigns are jumping on this (as is the press) and rightly so. One comment here said that Obama's two rivals shouldn't have jumped on this and have taken it out of context. When you read the whole thing, it's not out of context (at least not to me). This is what the guy (and obviously millions who support him) thinks.
It gives Senator Hillary Clinton an opening in Pennsylvania and could conceivably lead her to a crushing win in the Keystone State instead of a narrow victory. Other analysts say it also may give pause to superdelegates who could see more of this type of behavior ahead.
So far, Senator Obama's campaign and the senator himself have rarely made mistakes. The biggest controversy in his camp so far has been over his preacher and the preacher's incindiary comments. Now, the spotlight has shifted to Obama himself.
If Senator Clinton wins the Pennsylvania primary by high double digits and causes some tightening in other races (like Indiana) it could keep the race going right up to the convention.
The campaign staff of Senator Obama says this won't affect the delegate totals so far. Perhaps, but I wouldn't dismiss the possbility that it could in the future.
Big mistake here IMHO.
"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."
And that's only part of it.
The comments and video were posted on a liberal blog site with the poster warning that Obama shouldn't talk that way about what the poster referred to as "working class Americans."
The blogosophere is erupting and the consensus is that is a major mistake by the Obama campaign, perhaps even worse than the Jeremiah Wright videos. As has been pointed out, this was not said by Obama's preacher but by the man himself. It was also said to a group of San Francisco political types whose image across the country is that of an elite liberal community who, fairly or unfairly, are tagged as holding those not like them in contempt.
Politically, it damages Obama heavily in Pennsylvania especially among those who:
a) own guns and like to hunt
b) are religious
c) have questions about illegal immigration
d) question US free trade policies
Obama is saying the downturn in the US economy is so bad that it is driving people to those awful behaviors described above. This has been described as the typical view of the upscale liberals who have flocked to Senator Obama's campaign. You can also read it in books like "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank, which wonders why voters like these haven't been voting Democratic, and ascribes at least some of the reasons to the very sentiments expressed by Obama in San Francisco.
It makes Obama comes across as an elitist who disparages people who hunt, go to church, and believe that drivers licenses should not be issued to illegal immigrants (for example) or that NAFTA may not be such a great deal...in other words, people who make up a good deal of voters in Pennsylvania and other industrial states. And by the way, hasn't Senator Obama himself questioned NAFTA?
He has attempted to amend his comments saying he could have put the sentiment better, but that's the problem. If this is what he truly believes, he is going to run into some major trouble ahead.
Already the Clinton and McCain campaigns are jumping on this (as is the press) and rightly so. One comment here said that Obama's two rivals shouldn't have jumped on this and have taken it out of context. When you read the whole thing, it's not out of context (at least not to me). This is what the guy (and obviously millions who support him) thinks.
It gives Senator Hillary Clinton an opening in Pennsylvania and could conceivably lead her to a crushing win in the Keystone State instead of a narrow victory. Other analysts say it also may give pause to superdelegates who could see more of this type of behavior ahead.
So far, Senator Obama's campaign and the senator himself have rarely made mistakes. The biggest controversy in his camp so far has been over his preacher and the preacher's incindiary comments. Now, the spotlight has shifted to Obama himself.
If Senator Clinton wins the Pennsylvania primary by high double digits and causes some tightening in other races (like Indiana) it could keep the race going right up to the convention.
The campaign staff of Senator Obama says this won't affect the delegate totals so far. Perhaps, but I wouldn't dismiss the possbility that it could in the future.
Big mistake here IMHO.
April 9, 2008
Candidates and Congress
All three presidential candidates had their moments in the political spotlight when General David Petraeus and Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress on Tuesday.
The general, architect of the "surge" strategy, said that there would no massive withdrawal of U.S. troops in the immediate future and asked for a "pause" in troop withdrawals after the surge forces are drawn down. Ambassador Crocker said that some political progress was being made in Iraq but "immense challenges" remain in the country's governing structure.
The two men appeared before a series of Senate and House committees and all three presidential candidates-Senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama-had their turn to question and comment on the appearance of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
Senator Clinton argued for an "orderly" withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Senator McCain only wants to withdraw troops when it is clear that adequate security has been established in Iraq, and Senator Obama called for a "timetable" for withdrawal plus talks with Iran, which figured prominently in the testimony.
The hearings were much less contentious than previous ones with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Democrats, while disagreeing with the two men, remained respectful, particularly the presidential candidates. They don't want to anger voters who, while not agreeing wholeheartedly with the war in Iraq, still don't want to see the U.S. humiliated there.
Senator McCain tried to position himself as a supporter of the U-S aims in Iraq but not tie himself to the past trials and tribulations of the war as it has been conducted both on the ground and in Washington.
At the end of the day, not much changed politically, say the experts, as each candidate seemed to be propping up his or her own political base and trying not to anger those who, for the time being, may disagree.
The general, architect of the "surge" strategy, said that there would no massive withdrawal of U.S. troops in the immediate future and asked for a "pause" in troop withdrawals after the surge forces are drawn down. Ambassador Crocker said that some political progress was being made in Iraq but "immense challenges" remain in the country's governing structure.
The two men appeared before a series of Senate and House committees and all three presidential candidates-Senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama-had their turn to question and comment on the appearance of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
Senator Clinton argued for an "orderly" withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Senator McCain only wants to withdraw troops when it is clear that adequate security has been established in Iraq, and Senator Obama called for a "timetable" for withdrawal plus talks with Iran, which figured prominently in the testimony.
The hearings were much less contentious than previous ones with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Democrats, while disagreeing with the two men, remained respectful, particularly the presidential candidates. They don't want to anger voters who, while not agreeing wholeheartedly with the war in Iraq, still don't want to see the U.S. humiliated there.
Senator McCain tried to position himself as a supporter of the U-S aims in Iraq but not tie himself to the past trials and tribulations of the war as it has been conducted both on the ground and in Washington.
At the end of the day, not much changed politically, say the experts, as each candidate seemed to be propping up his or her own political base and trying not to anger those who, for the time being, may disagree.
April 7, 2008
April 7 Update--This and That
Picking up from where I left off some time ago….
Sorry about not posting more, but we are in a bit of a lull. However, there have been some political developments and a few non-political ones to point to, so here we go:
There is increasing pressure on Senator Hillary Clinton of New York to end her presidential campaign to seek the nomination of the Democratic Party. This has been going on for some time now but is only increasing, as Democrats are getting a little nervous.
Her opponent, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, leads by 135 delegates and under the party's rules which award delegates proportionately to the votes in the primary and caucus elections, there is little likelihood she can catch him unless she scores high double digit triumphs in the remaining ten contests. Most people think that's doubtful.
The big election now is in Pennsylvania on April 22. It is a state in which Senator Clinton should do well given its demographics of union workers, downscale voters, and women. Both candidates have been working the state over the past weeks. The large lead that Senator Clinton began with after her wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4 have diminished. The race is tightening; one poll has Senator Clinton up by two, another by 11, and yet another has Senator Obama up by two.
Anecdotal reports on this primary are all over the map. Some analysts are saying that internal numbers in the Pennsylvania polls show Senator Clinton dropping among white males. They argue that her claim that she landed under sniper fire during a trip to Tuzla in the 1990s as First Lady, which later proved to be exaggerated, is hurting her badly.
Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, left his role in Senator Clinton's campaign. He stepped aside because of his meeting with the Colombian government concerning a bilateral free trade agreement between Bogotá and the United States. Senator Clinton opposes the idea and Mark Penn had to issue an apology for the incident.
All in all, one could look at these signs and see a campaign in trouble although it is an eerily similar situation to the one right before the New Hampshire Primary back in January. Then, it appeared as if Senator Clinton was going to get blown out, but she fashioned a win and suddenly the campaign was righted again.
Same thing with Ohio and Texas-wins she needed and wins she got as she was being pressured to quit, something she says she is not prepared to do.
So I can't make out exactly what's happening in Pennsylvania; I do believe she is still leading. Earlier predictions were that Senator Obama wouldn't win but one county in the state. If he wins in Pennsylvania, then the whole thing is over, and Senator Clinton will have lost her main claim to keep running-that she wins in the big industrial states where he cannot. But if he does….then it's all about the exit speech.
There is still two weeks to go before the election, so we should see whether or not Senator Clinton could maintain or expand upon a lead she may or may not have. Sound confusing? Me, too.
Then there are reports that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is talking to Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Party nominee, about becoming his running mate.
Seriously.
Former Republican Party strategist Dan Senor told the ABC News Network that the Secretary of State is "actively" courting the McCain campaign and points to a meeting she held with a bunch of Republican conservative activists as evidence.
Many conservatives are skeptical as she was once touted for the presidential nomination and people were even ready to begin campaigns to get her to run. She turned them down, and given that she has never run for elective office, and since it appears that most African-American voters are going to back Senator Obama, it may not be such a wise choice.
This could be one of those Washington stories where someone connects two dots and announces they have solved the puzzle. It's possible, I suppose, but not very likely, IMHO. Honestly, I would be very surprised if she was actively considering such a candidacy.
Well, more later, so stay tuned, and go to our website, www.voanews.com for the latest on the ups and downs and ins and outs of the election.
I do feel that things are coming to a head, though, and that head might be April 22. We'll see.
Sorry about not posting more, but we are in a bit of a lull. However, there have been some political developments and a few non-political ones to point to, so here we go:
There is increasing pressure on Senator Hillary Clinton of New York to end her presidential campaign to seek the nomination of the Democratic Party. This has been going on for some time now but is only increasing, as Democrats are getting a little nervous.
Her opponent, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, leads by 135 delegates and under the party's rules which award delegates proportionately to the votes in the primary and caucus elections, there is little likelihood she can catch him unless she scores high double digit triumphs in the remaining ten contests. Most people think that's doubtful.
The big election now is in Pennsylvania on April 22. It is a state in which Senator Clinton should do well given its demographics of union workers, downscale voters, and women. Both candidates have been working the state over the past weeks. The large lead that Senator Clinton began with after her wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4 have diminished. The race is tightening; one poll has Senator Clinton up by two, another by 11, and yet another has Senator Obama up by two.
Anecdotal reports on this primary are all over the map. Some analysts are saying that internal numbers in the Pennsylvania polls show Senator Clinton dropping among white males. They argue that her claim that she landed under sniper fire during a trip to Tuzla in the 1990s as First Lady, which later proved to be exaggerated, is hurting her badly.
Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, left his role in Senator Clinton's campaign. He stepped aside because of his meeting with the Colombian government concerning a bilateral free trade agreement between Bogotá and the United States. Senator Clinton opposes the idea and Mark Penn had to issue an apology for the incident.
All in all, one could look at these signs and see a campaign in trouble although it is an eerily similar situation to the one right before the New Hampshire Primary back in January. Then, it appeared as if Senator Clinton was going to get blown out, but she fashioned a win and suddenly the campaign was righted again.
Same thing with Ohio and Texas-wins she needed and wins she got as she was being pressured to quit, something she says she is not prepared to do.
So I can't make out exactly what's happening in Pennsylvania; I do believe she is still leading. Earlier predictions were that Senator Obama wouldn't win but one county in the state. If he wins in Pennsylvania, then the whole thing is over, and Senator Clinton will have lost her main claim to keep running-that she wins in the big industrial states where he cannot. But if he does….then it's all about the exit speech.
There is still two weeks to go before the election, so we should see whether or not Senator Clinton could maintain or expand upon a lead she may or may not have. Sound confusing? Me, too.
Then there are reports that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is talking to Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Party nominee, about becoming his running mate.
Seriously.
Former Republican Party strategist Dan Senor told the ABC News Network that the Secretary of State is "actively" courting the McCain campaign and points to a meeting she held with a bunch of Republican conservative activists as evidence.
Many conservatives are skeptical as she was once touted for the presidential nomination and people were even ready to begin campaigns to get her to run. She turned them down, and given that she has never run for elective office, and since it appears that most African-American voters are going to back Senator Obama, it may not be such a wise choice.
This could be one of those Washington stories where someone connects two dots and announces they have solved the puzzle. It's possible, I suppose, but not very likely, IMHO. Honestly, I would be very surprised if she was actively considering such a candidacy.
Well, more later, so stay tuned, and go to our website, www.voanews.com for the latest on the ups and downs and ins and outs of the election.
I do feel that things are coming to a head, though, and that head might be April 22. We'll see.
April 3, 2008
Pennsylvania Tightening Up
In the Democratic presidential race (the only game in town), it looks as if the primary in Pennsylvania, scheduled for April 22, is getting closer. Recent polls show that the race between Sen. Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton has tightened considerably.
For weeks, Senator Clinton has enjoyed a double-digit lead in the state which is said to be tailor-made for her because of the demographics. But two new polls out show the race much more even.
A Public Policy Poll of a large sample of voters (1224) gives Senator Obama the lead by two points, 45-43; an Insider Advantage poll has Senator Clinton ahead by three. Both of those polls were taken through April 1. A SurveyUSA poll in Pennsylvania that ended on March 31 had Senator Clinton up by 12. Other polls show a wide variance although Senator Clinton maintains a lead in them.
Bottom line is that it looks as though the huge spending advantage Senator Obama has in Pennsylvania (about a 3-1 advantage) may be helping erase the deficit. Some analysts argue that the long period between the Clinton victories in Ohio and Texas to Pennsylvania has benefitted Senator Obama who is spending lots of time in the state.
Also, his speech on race may have allayed some fears in the Democratic Party about him (although I think there is still fallout to be had from it); Senator Clinton's gaffe about sniper fire in Bosnia hasn't helped her at all, and the numerous endorsements that Senator Obama is getting daily may take its toll.
Senator Obama is also outraising her in funds, so put all these things together and one could see that the race is tightening.
Most analysts say that Senator Clinton needs to win by double digits in Pennsylvania and to eke out a win may not help her at all. But a win is a win.
If Senator Obama wins by a small margin, it's a huge triumph for him; but if Senator Clinton wins by that same margin, it's a "defeat". Such is the expectations game. But the two have run neck and neck and the margin between them after all the primary votes is not that much (compared to the number of primary voters and delegate totals) so why would we expect that to change in Pennsylvania?
There are scenarios being spun about how Senator Clinton could garner more popular votes at the end of the primary process, but she has to win Pennsylvania.
I'll have more polling data and trends as we go.
For weeks, Senator Clinton has enjoyed a double-digit lead in the state which is said to be tailor-made for her because of the demographics. But two new polls out show the race much more even.
A Public Policy Poll of a large sample of voters (1224) gives Senator Obama the lead by two points, 45-43; an Insider Advantage poll has Senator Clinton ahead by three. Both of those polls were taken through April 1. A SurveyUSA poll in Pennsylvania that ended on March 31 had Senator Clinton up by 12. Other polls show a wide variance although Senator Clinton maintains a lead in them.
Bottom line is that it looks as though the huge spending advantage Senator Obama has in Pennsylvania (about a 3-1 advantage) may be helping erase the deficit. Some analysts argue that the long period between the Clinton victories in Ohio and Texas to Pennsylvania has benefitted Senator Obama who is spending lots of time in the state.
Also, his speech on race may have allayed some fears in the Democratic Party about him (although I think there is still fallout to be had from it); Senator Clinton's gaffe about sniper fire in Bosnia hasn't helped her at all, and the numerous endorsements that Senator Obama is getting daily may take its toll.
Senator Obama is also outraising her in funds, so put all these things together and one could see that the race is tightening.
Most analysts say that Senator Clinton needs to win by double digits in Pennsylvania and to eke out a win may not help her at all. But a win is a win.
If Senator Obama wins by a small margin, it's a huge triumph for him; but if Senator Clinton wins by that same margin, it's a "defeat". Such is the expectations game. But the two have run neck and neck and the margin between them after all the primary votes is not that much (compared to the number of primary voters and delegate totals) so why would we expect that to change in Pennsylvania?
There are scenarios being spun about how Senator Clinton could garner more popular votes at the end of the primary process, but she has to win Pennsylvania.
I'll have more polling data and trends as we go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
