From Joan Walsh in Salon.com on May 27, 2008: "The world is divided between people who consider Bill and Hillary Clinton monsters, and people who don't. It used to be that the monster faction was limited to Republicans and certain mainstream media fixtures like Maureen Dowd and much of the MSNBC lineup. Now, increasingly, it involves too many Obama-supporting Democrats -- and the Clinton-hate is in danger of damaging the Democratic Party.
I took the weekend off, really and truly off, because my daughter graduated from high school Saturday (yay!) and events got under way Thursday night. I did check e-mail briefly on Friday, and I learned then about Clinton's unfortunate reference to Robert F. Kennedy's assassination -- from an Obama campaign e-mail from spokesman Bill Burton. I took some time to look around at the coverage, and I followed a link to Clinton's actual interview with the Argus-Leader, and I had to say: Wow. I couldn't believe this became the weekend's hottest political issue. I couldn't believe Keith Olbermann did a special comment on it (which I really couldn't believe was also widely circulated via e-mail by the Obama campaign). I couldn't believe that only George Stephanopoulos took the time to scrutinize and question the judgment behind the Obama campaign's political use of what was at worst bad phrasing on Clinton's part.
Thanks to my long weekend, I could probably get away without addressing the controversy over Clinton's RFK remarks, which is finally dying down. But I think this is an important and disturbing issue for Democrats. Criticize Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war, her pandering on the gas tax holiday, her lame remarks about "hardworking Americans, white Americans," her response to Obama's "bitter" remarks, her lackluster campaign strategy coming into 2008. I've criticized all of that, and more. But to argue that she was suggesting she's staying in the race because Obama might be assassinated -- even after both Clinton, and the journalists who interviewed her, said her reference was to RFK's June campaign, not to his heartbreaking murder -- requires either a special kind of paranoia or venal political opportunism.
I understand the fears many people have about Obama's safety; given our country's tragic history, they are real and understandable. Suggesting Clinton was trying to play on such fears is different. Throughout this long campaign the Clintons have been turned into a vile caricature: amoral, power-mad narcissists who are not beyond using racism and even worries about Obama's safety to press their political cause. I've criticized both Clintons repeatedly in the pages of Salon for over 10 years, but it's really time to say: Enough.
For several months I've found myself bothered by a double standard in both the behavior and the media coverage of the Obama campaign, as supposedly representing a new kind of clean, post-partisan politics, by contrast with the dirty old win-at-any-cost Clintons. Hardball Obama campaign tactics -- David Axelrod partly blaming Clinton for Benazir Bhutto's death; the intimidation of Clinton voters by a pro-Obama union in Nevada (to be fair, some Obama supporters claimed intimidation by Clinton forces, too); the campaign's infamous South Carolina race memo (prepared before Bill Clinton made his dumb Jesse Jackson remark); the multiple "Harry and Louise" mailers distorting Clinton's healthcare proposal; not to mention ties between Obama, Axelrod and the Exelon Corp., even as Obama is touting his lobbyist-free campaign. Nothing seems to stick to Obama; he's Teflon.
This episode was worse than many but not entirely atypical: After his staff helped whip up a frenzy about Clinton's remarks, Obama himself said he accepted Clinton's statement that she had been misunderstood, and Axelrod tried to act gracious and insist that it's time to move on. But the damage had been done. Obama has run a better campaign than Clinton, there's no doubt about it, but he's had a lot of help from a fawning media. (Here's a great piece making a point I made months ago about how such coverage may ultimately hurt Obama.)
I'll be on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews" today, debating this issue with talk show host and Obama supporter Joe Madison. "
Showing posts with label Obama campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama campaign. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Obama Does Not Get Majority of Democratic Voters in Primaries
From NationalReview.com:
"In open primaries, some of Barack’s best friends are Republicans.
By John McLaughlin
There’s an important story in the Democratic primaries that the mainstream media either are missing or don’t want to report: In open Democratic primaries, the most supportive political segments for Barack Obama have been Republicans and conservatives.
Admittedly, these groups do not make up a large part of the Democratic-primary electorate. But the trend has been noticeable since Iowa, where entrance polls at the Democratic caucuses reported that the strongest segment for Obama was not registered Democrats, who voted 31 percent for Sen. Clinton and 32 percent for Obama, but rather the 3 percent who were registered Republicans. They voted 44 percent for Obama and only 10 percent for Clinton. Independents similarly gave Obama more support than Clinton, by 41 percent to 17 percent .
Because of Iowa’s special status and convoluted rules, one might think these results would not be typical. But on February 5, Super Tuesday, which had a mix of open and closed primaries, a similar phenomenon occurred. Among the 79 percent of voters who were affiliated Democrats, Clinton won 52 percent to 45 percent . Independents, who accounted for 18 percent of the vote, preferred Obama 53 percent to 37 percent . But there was another 3 percent who claimed to be Republicans, and they voted for Obama 53 percent to 36 percent .
Could this be a realignment? Conservative Republicans leaving their party to become Obama acolytes? Or was it perhaps strategic voting for the weaker candidate in a general election?
Virginia’s open primary on February 12 was the next test. There Republicans made up 7 percent of Democratic primary voters, and they overwhelmingly favored Obama, 72 percent to 23 percent . The 22 percent of voters who were independents weren’t far behind, at 69 percent for Obama and 30 percent for Clinton. Virginia Democrats were a bit less enthusiastic, at 62 percent to 38 percent . But the strongest Obama vote came from the 12 percent who called themselves conservatives, a group drawing members from all three party categories. They voted 73 percent to 24 percent for Obama.
A week later, in Wisconsin, Republicans accounted for 9 percent of Democratic primary voters. They went for Obama 72 percent to 28 percent. Another 28 percent were independents; they favored Obama 64 percent to 33 percent. Registered Democrats went 53 percent Obama and 46 percent Clinton. As in Virginia, the 14 percent who called themselves conservatives voted 59 percent to 40 percent for Obama. (Most of the numbers in this article are from CNN and Fox News exit polls and can be found on their websites.)
Is there a secret “YAF for Obama” movement? Are McCarthyites going gaga for Barack?
Finally, last week saw an open primary in Texas, and Rush Limbaugh called for some strategic crossover voting. Polls had shown that in a hypothetical November showdown, Clinton trailed John McCain by about 5 points, while Obama led him by a similar margin. So Rush told his massive conservative dittohead audience: Vote for Hillary! We need Hillary!
Did Rush swing the Texas election? Probably not. Exit polls showed that 10 percent of Democratic primary voters were Republicans, and they voted for Obama by 53 percent to 46 percent over Clinton. That’s a higher crossover rate and a closer margin than in most other states, so there may have been something of a Limbaugh effect, but the overall pattern remains: Republicans voting in Democratic primaries clearly favor Obama. As in other states, the 24 percent who claimed to be independents voted for Obama 52 percent to 46 percent . Only the 67 percent of self-proclaimed Democrats voted for Clinton, by 53 percent to 47 percent.
What’s going on here? Why are Republicans and conservatives so strongly supporting the most liberal senator in the country?
The answer is a simple case of “never overlook the obvious”: Obama attracts these unlikely supporters because he’s running against a woman who has an 80 percent unfavorable rating with Republicans. Why wait to vote against Hillary Clinton in November when you can do it now? Why waste a vote on Rev. Huckabee when God wants you to vote against Sen. Clinton?
Luckily for Senator Clinton, there’s no crossover voting in the Keystone State. It’s up to Obama to win his own party’s voters, with no help from Republicans and anti-Clinton independents. If he can do that in Pennsylvania, the nomination is almost certainly his. If he can’t, his popularity among non-Democrats will be cited both for him (as evidence of his broad appeal) and against him (as evidence that Clinton is the truer Democrat). What both these analyses overlook is that most of those Republican and independent Obama supporters weren’t really voting for Obama; they were voting against Clinton."
— John McLaughlin is CEO of McLaughlin & Associates.
"In open primaries, some of Barack’s best friends are Republicans.
By John McLaughlin
There’s an important story in the Democratic primaries that the mainstream media either are missing or don’t want to report: In open Democratic primaries, the most supportive political segments for Barack Obama have been Republicans and conservatives.
Admittedly, these groups do not make up a large part of the Democratic-primary electorate. But the trend has been noticeable since Iowa, where entrance polls at the Democratic caucuses reported that the strongest segment for Obama was not registered Democrats, who voted 31 percent for Sen. Clinton and 32 percent for Obama, but rather the 3 percent who were registered Republicans. They voted 44 percent for Obama and only 10 percent for Clinton. Independents similarly gave Obama more support than Clinton, by 41 percent to 17 percent .
Because of Iowa’s special status and convoluted rules, one might think these results would not be typical. But on February 5, Super Tuesday, which had a mix of open and closed primaries, a similar phenomenon occurred. Among the 79 percent of voters who were affiliated Democrats, Clinton won 52 percent to 45 percent . Independents, who accounted for 18 percent of the vote, preferred Obama 53 percent to 37 percent . But there was another 3 percent who claimed to be Republicans, and they voted for Obama 53 percent to 36 percent .
Could this be a realignment? Conservative Republicans leaving their party to become Obama acolytes? Or was it perhaps strategic voting for the weaker candidate in a general election?
Virginia’s open primary on February 12 was the next test. There Republicans made up 7 percent of Democratic primary voters, and they overwhelmingly favored Obama, 72 percent to 23 percent . The 22 percent of voters who were independents weren’t far behind, at 69 percent for Obama and 30 percent for Clinton. Virginia Democrats were a bit less enthusiastic, at 62 percent to 38 percent . But the strongest Obama vote came from the 12 percent who called themselves conservatives, a group drawing members from all three party categories. They voted 73 percent to 24 percent for Obama.
A week later, in Wisconsin, Republicans accounted for 9 percent of Democratic primary voters. They went for Obama 72 percent to 28 percent. Another 28 percent were independents; they favored Obama 64 percent to 33 percent. Registered Democrats went 53 percent Obama and 46 percent Clinton. As in Virginia, the 14 percent who called themselves conservatives voted 59 percent to 40 percent for Obama. (Most of the numbers in this article are from CNN and Fox News exit polls and can be found on their websites.)
Is there a secret “YAF for Obama” movement? Are McCarthyites going gaga for Barack?
Finally, last week saw an open primary in Texas, and Rush Limbaugh called for some strategic crossover voting. Polls had shown that in a hypothetical November showdown, Clinton trailed John McCain by about 5 points, while Obama led him by a similar margin. So Rush told his massive conservative dittohead audience: Vote for Hillary! We need Hillary!
Did Rush swing the Texas election? Probably not. Exit polls showed that 10 percent of Democratic primary voters were Republicans, and they voted for Obama by 53 percent to 46 percent over Clinton. That’s a higher crossover rate and a closer margin than in most other states, so there may have been something of a Limbaugh effect, but the overall pattern remains: Republicans voting in Democratic primaries clearly favor Obama. As in other states, the 24 percent who claimed to be independents voted for Obama 52 percent to 46 percent . Only the 67 percent of self-proclaimed Democrats voted for Clinton, by 53 percent to 47 percent.
What’s going on here? Why are Republicans and conservatives so strongly supporting the most liberal senator in the country?
The answer is a simple case of “never overlook the obvious”: Obama attracts these unlikely supporters because he’s running against a woman who has an 80 percent unfavorable rating with Republicans. Why wait to vote against Hillary Clinton in November when you can do it now? Why waste a vote on Rev. Huckabee when God wants you to vote against Sen. Clinton?
Luckily for Senator Clinton, there’s no crossover voting in the Keystone State. It’s up to Obama to win his own party’s voters, with no help from Republicans and anti-Clinton independents. If he can do that in Pennsylvania, the nomination is almost certainly his. If he can’t, his popularity among non-Democrats will be cited both for him (as evidence of his broad appeal) and against him (as evidence that Clinton is the truer Democrat). What both these analyses overlook is that most of those Republican and independent Obama supporters weren’t really voting for Obama; they were voting against Clinton."
— John McLaughlin is CEO of McLaughlin & Associates.
The Beginning of the End for Obama Campaign
FRom Seattle Times By John Carlson:
"Everything in politics has an arc — a beginning, a high point and an end. The art of campaigning is to hit the high end of that arc as close to Election Day as possible.
That happened in 1980 when Ronald Reagan, after stumbling for two weeks following the Republican convention in Detroit, regained his footing, restored his momentum and won 41 states on Election Day. In 1988, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis ran 17 points ahead of Vice President George Bush — in July. From then on, everything ran downhill and Dukakis won just 10 states. On the evening before Election Day 2000, Dick Cheney told me a network poll had George W. Bush up 6 points. But the momentum had been moving toward Al Gore. Had the election lasted 24 hours longer, Gore probably would have peaked at just the right time.
Barack Obama has generated more excitement this year than any presidential contender in at least a generation. Having seen nothing like him in their lives, young people have signed up in droves. Older Democrats say the last candidate who connected with them this way was Bobby Kennedy in '68. Women faint at his rallies. That wouldn't happen at a John McCain or Hillary Clinton event unless it was held in 110-degree heat.
But excitement is closely tied to momentum and the Obama campaign is losing both. The affection for him is genuine, but it's less a long-term romance than a crush. And everyone knows that crushes either crash or fade. Ask an Obama supporter about the senator's greatest political accomplishment and the reaction is often the same: a crinkled eyebrow, an awkward acknowledgment that they can't think of anything, but he still inspires them because he represents "change" and "hope."
OK. But soaring, uplifting sermons promising "hope" and "change" eventually run dry unless they're connected to clear ideas and a coherent agenda. Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech was about ending segregation in the pursuit of racial equality in every aspect of life. He was speaking truth to power for a clear purpose.
But, Obama's words aren't a bridge to ideas and opinions, they're substitutes for them. He calls for common ground, but the senator actually has a more liberal voting record than Hillary Clinton and is much more ideological and partisan in the Senate than McCain.
Obama's losses in both Texas and Ohio underscore why time is not on his side. These were the first primaries that didn't follow on the heels of another with another contest immediately following. Instead voters were able to sit back for three full weeks, listen to the debates, watch how the candidates and their spouses talked to different audiences in different parts of the state, hear their advertising and take their time digesting this information and discussing it with others at home, work and the barber shop.
When they did that, Obama began to fade. Like a hit record that's been on the charts for a while, they still smile when it plays but they're getting used to hearing it. In Ohio, a must-win state for the Democrats in November, people began to tire of it. Isn't there a "B" side?
Most Americans like Obama but they don't know him, and liking and trusting aren't quite the same thing. A TV spot asking whom voters would rather have picking up the phone at the White House during an overseas crisis at 3 a.m. simply asked what any reasonable voter would consider before pulling the lever in November. That's hardly a low blow or an act of "desperation" by the Clinton people. (If the McCain campaign is smart, it'll rerun that ad in the fall, with McCain picking up the line.)
And Michelle Obama didn't help with her comment about finally, in her 40s, "being proud of my country for the first time," and suggesting to a young audience in a working-class Ohio town that they should sidestep "corporate America" and instead seek out more rewarding, lower-paying jobs in teaching and social work. Whom did she think she was talking to, the senior class at Vassar?
There is much to like and admire about the first post-'60s candidate for president. But his constant incantations of "change" aren't enough — especially when your Democratic opponent and Republican challenger already offer a clear change from the status quo.
The senator has built up a huge wave of momentum and he is still the odds-on favorite to get the nomination. But even as he surfs, the wave is beginning to crest.
John Carlson is a news commentator for KOMO-AM (1000), and talk-show host with Ken Schram on "The Commentators," from 3 to 6 p.m. weekdays on KVI-AM (570). "
"Everything in politics has an arc — a beginning, a high point and an end. The art of campaigning is to hit the high end of that arc as close to Election Day as possible.
That happened in 1980 when Ronald Reagan, after stumbling for two weeks following the Republican convention in Detroit, regained his footing, restored his momentum and won 41 states on Election Day. In 1988, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis ran 17 points ahead of Vice President George Bush — in July. From then on, everything ran downhill and Dukakis won just 10 states. On the evening before Election Day 2000, Dick Cheney told me a network poll had George W. Bush up 6 points. But the momentum had been moving toward Al Gore. Had the election lasted 24 hours longer, Gore probably would have peaked at just the right time.
Barack Obama has generated more excitement this year than any presidential contender in at least a generation. Having seen nothing like him in their lives, young people have signed up in droves. Older Democrats say the last candidate who connected with them this way was Bobby Kennedy in '68. Women faint at his rallies. That wouldn't happen at a John McCain or Hillary Clinton event unless it was held in 110-degree heat.
But excitement is closely tied to momentum and the Obama campaign is losing both. The affection for him is genuine, but it's less a long-term romance than a crush. And everyone knows that crushes either crash or fade. Ask an Obama supporter about the senator's greatest political accomplishment and the reaction is often the same: a crinkled eyebrow, an awkward acknowledgment that they can't think of anything, but he still inspires them because he represents "change" and "hope."
OK. But soaring, uplifting sermons promising "hope" and "change" eventually run dry unless they're connected to clear ideas and a coherent agenda. Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech was about ending segregation in the pursuit of racial equality in every aspect of life. He was speaking truth to power for a clear purpose.
But, Obama's words aren't a bridge to ideas and opinions, they're substitutes for them. He calls for common ground, but the senator actually has a more liberal voting record than Hillary Clinton and is much more ideological and partisan in the Senate than McCain.
Obama's losses in both Texas and Ohio underscore why time is not on his side. These were the first primaries that didn't follow on the heels of another with another contest immediately following. Instead voters were able to sit back for three full weeks, listen to the debates, watch how the candidates and their spouses talked to different audiences in different parts of the state, hear their advertising and take their time digesting this information and discussing it with others at home, work and the barber shop.
When they did that, Obama began to fade. Like a hit record that's been on the charts for a while, they still smile when it plays but they're getting used to hearing it. In Ohio, a must-win state for the Democrats in November, people began to tire of it. Isn't there a "B" side?
Most Americans like Obama but they don't know him, and liking and trusting aren't quite the same thing. A TV spot asking whom voters would rather have picking up the phone at the White House during an overseas crisis at 3 a.m. simply asked what any reasonable voter would consider before pulling the lever in November. That's hardly a low blow or an act of "desperation" by the Clinton people. (If the McCain campaign is smart, it'll rerun that ad in the fall, with McCain picking up the line.)
And Michelle Obama didn't help with her comment about finally, in her 40s, "being proud of my country for the first time," and suggesting to a young audience in a working-class Ohio town that they should sidestep "corporate America" and instead seek out more rewarding, lower-paying jobs in teaching and social work. Whom did she think she was talking to, the senior class at Vassar?
There is much to like and admire about the first post-'60s candidate for president. But his constant incantations of "change" aren't enough — especially when your Democratic opponent and Republican challenger already offer a clear change from the status quo.
The senator has built up a huge wave of momentum and he is still the odds-on favorite to get the nomination. But even as he surfs, the wave is beginning to crest.
John Carlson is a news commentator for KOMO-AM (1000), and talk-show host with Ken Schram on "The Commentators," from 3 to 6 p.m. weekdays on KVI-AM (570). "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)