The Democratic Race: Square One

Political analysis is often a tug of war between the deep limbic, animal regions of the brain on one day and the cortical areas on the next.*

Obama's had a tough week, as numbers everywhere reflect, including the Gallup daily track (but not the Rasmussen track) and three state polls showing Clinton outperforming Obama against McCain in Ohio, Missouri and even making Kentucky somewhat competitive.

But the Obama campaign has met the challenge of Rev. Wright, perhaps sufficiently, perhaps not. But from the perspective of wavering superdelegates, it's hard to find a level of panic among them. Obama has four weeks to recover until Pennsylvania; assuming that the bad news evens out the good news, the attitudes of these superdelegates will degrees to the mean and they won't be a position to rethink the entire premise of Obama's candidacy.

The see-saw numbers change every week; why would superdelegates put more stock in them now versus last week versus two weeks from now?

And Florida and Michigan aren't going to re-vote. The chances for their Jan. 29 delegations to be seated intact are slim to shred.

Clinton may well win the political argument in Florida and Michigan, but she won't win a single delegate from those two states until at least April, when the DNC's rules and bylaws committee might decide to seat superdelegates based on the appeal of DNC member Jon Ausman.

To put it crudely, the analyst's emotional brain feels momentum for Hillary; the analyst's analytical brain can't quite figure out how Obama loses.

* Yes, cognitive neuroscientists, I am vastly oversimplifying the brain.

Comments

I will raise you one better. There is not one example in this primary cycle of "momentum" impacting anything when it all comes down to it. In general, it actually HURT the person with momentum because when the other candidate ended up resisting better than expected (NH, OH/TX, SC) it was seen as a bigger defeat than it was.
If PA is anything tighter than 15-20 points, the media will portray it as a disappointment for HIll.

Posted by Benjamin | March 20, 2008 10:08 AM

The Obama campaign is the most organized and disciplined campaign team I have seen in a very, very long time. They get it and they will not lose their focus. It IS about the delegates no matter how much Clinton wants to try to spin her way out of it.

Posted by Phillydog | March 20, 2008 10:12 AM

You mean the attitudes of the superdelegates will "regress" to the mean

Posted by Jim W | March 20, 2008 10:15 AM

It beats the alternative of having the Super delegates chi-squared.

It is going to be real interesting if it comes down to the bi-modal vs. the normal distribution.

Then there is the question of whether Mark Penn will have a Dick Morris moment and turn the campaign's focus onto his nocturnal issues.

Posted by D | March 20, 2008 10:20 AM

It's interesting that after a month with a lead, the superdelegates have not gone to Obama yet as a group. I'd be very surprised if they do now.
Now with wright as a giant red flag for many of us, what will the superdelegates do.
The speech really gave no reason for anyone troubled by his 20 years of being in Wright's thrall to be less troubled by it.
He looks unelectable to many of us now even though a week ago we felt good about him.
20 years in this guy's thrall suggests he does not have the judgement to lead us afterall.
The election was Obama's to lose and he went and lost it.

Posted by Michael C. | March 20, 2008 10:22 AM

This is great news for Obama!

Posted by anonymous | March 20, 2008 10:25 AM

The election was Obama's to lose? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh my god, you are supremely absurd.

Posted by Kristen | March 20, 2008 10:26 AM

"If PA is anything tighter than 15-20 points, the media will portray it as a disappointment for HIll"

Highly unlikely, since the media called a squeaker in popular votes and a loss delegate wise in TX, where she had had a 20% lead 3 weeks earlier a big win.

"20 years in this guy's thrall suggests he does not have the judgement to lead us afterall."

Unfortunately, that statement, as ignorant as it is, is shared by a lot of people.

Posted by john m | March 20, 2008 10:28 AM

Michael C. is right. Obama's potential electoral map has gotten much more difficult over the last two weeks. There is no longer any chance whatsoever of him winning states like Kansas and Nebraska (not that the odds were ever that high), or anything in the South. Virginia and Colorado now appear increasingly out of reach. Just like Clinton, Obama would have to rely on carrying Ohio or Florida in order to win this election, without losing Pennsylvania or Michigan. To make matters worse he now has to worry about a state like New Jersey, which until recently I didn't believe would really be at risk with him at the top of the ticket. It's not impossible for Obama to be elected president but I wouldn't be betting on it.

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 10:28 AM

I think the problem the Superdelegates are ignoring is that if they don't do something NOW and unify the party and start attacking McCain and beating back the smears against Obama or if they choose Hillary making her platable so she can be a positive down ballot they need to choose a nominee NOW.

The McCain gaffes being ignored is symptomatic of the Democrats not being on offense and not being united.

We can't afford this for the party. We can't afford this for the future. And we can not win if we don't circle the wagons now.

If Barack Obama isn't the nominee the party will lose a lot of african american supporters and the result will be as hard to deal with as the Rev. Wright fallout. If Obama and Clinton unite on a ticket, in any incarnation, I think we have a stronger chance in the fall. I didn't think so before but now, I think they need to join together as soon as possible.

Posted by Rhoda | March 20, 2008 10:36 AM

Tim K- please provide one shred of evidence that "Virginia and Colorado now appear increasingly out of reach" or that Obama "now has to worry about a state like New Jersey". One piece of actual, concrete evidence; not a leap from the state polls Marc linked to. I'll wait.

Posted by south side | March 20, 2008 10:40 AM

Maybe Harry Reid can promise Clinton to step-down as majority leader and urge her to run for the job in 2009. I'm sure between Obama, Kennedy, Schumer and Clinton herself she would have more than enough votes to beat any comers. It's the only offer I could see attractive enough to coax her out of the race before June.

Thoughts?

Btw:

Rasmussen has new poll numbers out this morning:

Clinton is ahead of Obama in the West Virginia primary: Clinton 55%, Obama 27%.

Clinton beats McCain in Massachusetts by 19%.
Obama is only ahead by 7%.

On second thought, maybe Clinton should just stick this thing out.

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 10:43 AM

The idea that a story like this in March makes him unelectable in the fall is silly. Don't you guys remember all the "career-killing revelations" we had about Clinton all of 1991-92. Sure, things looked dire after Flowers first came up. Look at him now.
Did the path suddenly get harder ? Yes. But there is no reason to believe a Democrat would not win in November.
MAy I remind you there is PLENTY of material Hillary can be swiftboated with as well? Republicans have not used it and neither has Obama, to his credit.
The good news is we now know what they will attack Obama with and we can work around it

Posted by Benjamin | March 20, 2008 10:46 AM

south side:

Simple logic. If Obama is even in even with or behind McCain in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Ohio - which are states a Democrat has actually won in the recent past - how is he going to win states that are much more difficult?

As I just pointed out, Rasmussen has Obama 7% point ahead of McCain in Massachusetts. MASSACHUSETTS!

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 10:48 AM

Have not used it ... yet

Posted by Benjamin | March 20, 2008 10:48 AM

I think that we do not need the superdelegates to do something now. I think we should let the rest of the states vote in their primaries and such and the convention will cap off the selection process. Mc Cain is beatable. The sky is not falling for anyone except Obama whose connection to Wright can't really be made better.
Obama supporters will want to make the argument that folks who reject wright and obama because of wright don't get it or are ignorant or hated Obama to start with, but that just isn't true.
I also think that if the tide does indeed fully turn against Obama now because of wright then everyone will understand why, just as the fervent understood when their man Dean lost everything over the issue of temperment. And so I think the AA voter will watch and see that this connection with wright is what ruined Obama's chances, the fact of it.
He's lost his place in history already.

Posted by Michael C. | March 20, 2008 10:48 AM

It is a LONG time before the general election, or even PA. Obama has suffered through a terrible week. The Wright stuff could hardly be worse for him.

But, IF he recovers to, say, lose PA by the margin he lost OH, win NC & perhaps Indy, I see no reason why the Supers would act against him.

If he survives the initial onslaught, the pile-on aspect of this thing could blow back. ABC is asking the Obama campaign for a list of dates he attended church in the last 20 years. Isn't stuff like that going to get the sympathy of at least some churchgoers? I know it scares me more than a little bit.

On the other hand, if there is evidence that Obama has permanently slipped to unelectable status (i.e., he loses PA by 20-25; loses NC and IND), then I think something might happen.

But there's been no elections since Wright came up as a central issue, so no proof either way.

Posted by neilrlca | March 20, 2008 10:49 AM

Clinton has gained one two super delegates since Super Tuesday. Obama has gained about 50. The polls have shown Obama and Clinton to be within a few points of one another (some days he's up, some days she is). She's favored in PA, but he's favored in several other states whose delegate counts are equal to PA's.

Other than his rough headlines on Wright, which were followed by stellar reviews for his speech on race, I'm not sure how you arrive at the idea that Hillary has any trace of "momentum."

Posted by bhlnyc | March 20, 2008 10:49 AM

I can absolutely agree that Obama has taken hits...but can you really feel "momentum" for Hillary Clinton?

Posted by Dan | March 20, 2008 10:51 AM

chuck todd at msnbc took a look at the numbers AFTER the Tuesday speech and says that the raw numbers indicate that these other polls are reflecting Obama's floor on the Wright issue and that there has been upward movement since then so even the 'momentum' feeling you mention seems not to be there.

Posted by lfo | March 20, 2008 10:52 AM

How can you even be silly enough to take March polls in MA as if they mean anything ?
Of course MA will go for the Democratic nominee. It takes one round of ads pointing out McCain is strongly anti-abortion and BOOM. It is a twenty points rout for either H. or O.
Same goes for NJ.
And as we said again and again, Obama has a different path. He wins CO handily in polls - which H. loses - and VA. Boom. You have OH delegates replaced right there.
And in any case, polls in March dont mean squats, escpially in the bitter Democratic environment we are AND this is arguably his worst week ever so I would consider those a BASELINE rather than a ceiling

Posted by Benjamin | March 20, 2008 10:53 AM

Marc,

I think what you are saying is that the Democratic Party is basically fucked. They are stuck with Obama, and he's a train wreck.

Outside of your and Andrew Sullivan's little bubble, "God Damn America" just doesn't cut it in Main Street. Although you may think we are not intelligent enough to understand Mr. Obama's "nuance", we do exist, and we do vote.

Posted by Concerned Netizen | March 20, 2008 10:59 AM

Benjamin:

Of course Obama will win Massachusetts. But why is he only leading by 7% while Clinton leads by 19% in the same poll? Not a good sign for him.

Let's wait until we see some new match-ups in Colorado and Virginia (since the Wright story).

There's not going to be any magical "boom" for Obama. That's naive.

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 10:59 AM

Tim K- I asked for evidence, and your response was "simple logic". Let's examine your simple logic. True, Obama has a narrower lead in Massachusetts over McCain than Clinton. Yet, after the toughest week of his campaign, and without the benefit of polling numbers after Tuesday's speech, he still leads by 7%. And seriously, do you honestly believe any Democrat is going to lose Massachusetts? Particularly when we can actually have debates between Obama and John "I can't keep Iran and al Qaeda straight" McCain?

The same is true, I believe, with Pennsylvania and Ohio. Once we get to the general and compare the vastly different economic policies between either Democrat and McCain (who is basically calling for more of the same), the choice will be clear. C'mon, people are a LOT more concerned about the economy than some comments made by Obama's pastor.

Posted by south side | March 20, 2008 11:02 AM

I'm an analyst and I can tell you how Obama loses - he loses the momentum ...

Starting with a 20% loss in PA - it can all "fall apart" from there for him - we'll see.

Not to mention the big "rumor" - John Edwards endorsing Hillary adding to her "mo" and delivering NC.

There are MANY paths to victory for Clinton regardless of AD NAG's latest BS piece.

Posted by Bing! | March 20, 2008 11:05 AM

South Side:

You told seem to be asking for evidence, but solid proof. There is no proof concerning what will happen in the election for any candidate. We can only go by the best information currently available. Of course, as I just said in another post, I don't think any Democrat is going to lose Massachusetts. But do I think it says something that Clinton is winning the state by 19% and Obama only 7%? Yes.

Yes people are more concerned about the economy. But people have always been more concerned about the economic and domestic issues than anything else (even in 2004) and yet that has never stopped elections from being dominated by trivialities. In the 2000 election the campaign became about reports that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet, sighed in debates, and George Bush had a DUI many years before. It's naive to think this year the country is somehow immune to becoming about issues less important than the economy in the great scheme of things.

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 11:11 AM

I wouldn't waste much time arguing with Hillary shills.

Posted by goethean | March 20, 2008 11:12 AM

The latest match-up in CO AFTER the Wright story showed him winning CO big.
And once again, those polls would be the BASELINE. It won't get worse than this AND pay attention. Most of these polls assume a quarter of Hillary voters desert him, which is quite unreasonably assumption for NOvember even if people say that.
Add, say, half of those to his numbers and I really don't see how this baseline is nothing more than terrific news (Yeah it sounds counterintuitive and silly)

Posted by Benjamin | March 20, 2008 11:16 AM

And I also see the same MA poll showing Obama losing NH by three and Clinton by six.
Are we supposed to draw conclusions from that too ?

Posted by Benjamin | March 20, 2008 11:17 AM

The notion that Obama is "in thrall" to Rev. Wright is ludicrous. Since when do we dissect candidate's religious life like an inquisition. Anyone who claims that Obama's pastor is somehow holding sway over him politically is either ignorant or deliberately trying to smear Obama.

Polls go up and down. Obama never expected to win PA, WV, all he needs to do is keep it reasonably close, as in OH.

With the party failing to unite behind the leader in pledged delegates, states won, and popular vote, Obama is fighting on multiple fronts, alone. So be it, this is certainly testing his mettle. Hillary's latest "low road" tactic-- to exploit racial divisions in order to grab this nomination, party and country be damned-- is beyond disappointing. It's sickening. However I have to hope that we can get through this and rise above the ugliness.

Here in Oregon, 12,800 tickets for Obama's rally went in a matter of hours. I drove by his brand new campaign HQ in Portland yesterday and the line stretched for 2 blocks to get in.

Posted by Ruth | March 20, 2008 11:19 AM

Benjamin:

Yeah, sure. Obama winning big in Colorado is a baseline. That means he'll probably win the state by 20 points in the general election. You're right it sounds silly.

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 11:20 AM

Like Dan said, this is not momentum for Hillary. It's a movement away from Obama reflecting the sustained hits on race, some of which originated (intentionally or not) with the Clinton campaign.

And that's what leaves the party with a serious dilemma. If the damage to Obama turns out to be permanent, it's a reflection of the fact that racism in this country continues to be quite powerful. Turning to Clinton under these circumstances is a failure of hope and courage -- because it's a pure concession to the baseness of American political life. This needs to be underscored. Clinton has utterly failed to make a positive case for herself. If she gets the nomination at this point, it's based on the negative case that she's immune to the problems Obama confronts, problems which reflect badly on the nation, not on Obama.

It's notable in this regard that both McCain and Huckabee have come out against these attacks on Obama based on the Wright connection, while Clinton and other wise heads in the democrat party have remained silent. A choice to go with Clinton to avoid the Obama problems along with this deafening silence on the part of the democrat party would portray the democrats as a party that does not have the courage of its own convictions. When push comes to shove it did not challenge the race-based attacks on Obama, and instead bought into the landscape as is by nominating the 'safe' candidate.

The democrats might win this cycle just because the economy is very sour and there's a general mood to oust the incumbent party. But in the long run, the democrats position themselves to remain the minority party. Quite simply, they will still be seen as not standing for anything. The rhetoric on equality and opportunity and fairness will have been unmasked as being 100% empty. They'd deserve to lose the generation just now coming of age. And I expect they would.

Posted by Maggie | March 20, 2008 11:22 AM

It's interesting that after a month with a lead, the superdelegates have not gone to Obama yet as a group. I'd be very surprised if they do now.

It's more interesting that not a single superdelegate has switched from Obama to Clinton since l'affaire Wright.

Posted by lifelong democrat | March 20, 2008 11:24 AM

OK Tim. I know when a conversation is not going to go anywhere when someone pretends not to understand my points and make fun of them rather than tries to reply to them.
Oh well, for a while there, I thought I was going to have an interesting and productive conversation with an Hillary supporter.
But I guess there always has to be a moment where bad faith has to take over.
Too bad.

Posted by Benjamin | March 20, 2008 11:26 AM

I think people are misreading Marc's post. He's saying that, while the l'Affaire Wright might give many of us the sense that Clinton has an advantage right now, she really doesn't. Look for her campaign to get uglier and more desperate in the coming days as the doors start closing.

Posted by alex | March 20, 2008 11:28 AM

Benjamin:

I don't know what I can say to somebody who thinks Colorado and Virginia are somehow 'in the bag' for Obama. When we're talking about states that have rarely voted Democratic in the whole history of US presidential elections, I think the burden of proof is on the person who thinks those states will switch, not the person who thinks change is less likely. In my estimation poll numbers this far out are usually more - not less - encouraging for the challenger party in a traditional state of the other party. Just as John McCain is likely to get any closer than 7% against Obama in Massachusetts, and is far more likely to do much worse in the end, if Obama is only now tied in Colorado and Virginia, he's likely to lose in the end. And while we can all cherry-pick our favorite polls, I've just seen a Rasmussen one from a few days ago with John McCain and Obama tied at 46% in Colorado. Those are some of my reasons.

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 11:33 AM

Maggie,

That's extremely well said, and exactly right. My argument with Clinton is that she hasn't made a positive case for herself that holds water. A victory for her would actually represent an enormous defeat for the democratic party. This is born out by her conspiring with Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and even McCain himself.

Posted by alex | March 20, 2008 11:33 AM

Tim K- I take your point about trivialities. But this is not 2000 or 2004. We are mired in two wars, with one candidate essentially promising to continue those wars and possibly start others. We have an economic situation that can be described as nothing short of a crisis when the Fed cuts rates left and right, and major investment firms are being bought for peanuts. Frankly, despite the press's best efforts to the contrary, I think a great majority of people in this country are more than ready to deal with these issues squarely instead of voting based on trivialities. Which is why I don't put a whole lot of stock into polls showing Obama slipping in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri - places where his economic message will play much better to McCain's in November, particularly when he (Obama) ties the desire for ongoing war to the flailing economy. Anyway, my initial point was to point out that there is no evidence of any significant drop-off in Colorado and Virginia, and I think you've agreed that we'll just have to wait for polling data on those two states.

Posted by south side | March 20, 2008 11:39 AM

Maggie,

I agree with your post. I think we've learned a lot about some people through the Wright episode. McCain probably has nothing to lose by supporting Obama in this mess (he looks noble, takes care of his own pastor problems, and others on his side will capitalize without him having to get dirty). Still, it is the honorable path. Huckabee has nothing to lose (I guess if he doesn't want people looking at his sermons), and I think he really did the Christian thing. Obama, obviously caught between a rock and a hard place, tried to speak the truth, though it is a complex truth & may not reach the politically necessary audience. From each of them, at least a baseline human reaction.

From the Clintons: public silence & backroom dealing. Nice. From the other Dem powers that be: silence (I guess if Obama's going to sink, he should sink alone). What would be nice is if Edwards, King of the Working Class White Man, no matter who he is going to endorse, comes out strongly supportive of Obama on Leno tonight. Will he follow Huckabee's example?

As I said, I am learning a lot about people through this. Is John Edwards a phony or the real deal? Tune in at 11:30.

Posted by neilrlca | March 20, 2008 11:43 AM

Don't forget the lizard brain, which according to WaPo forces us to look at Lost spoilers.

I found that MA poll on RCP, Tim K, and it's from Thursday March 6th. What exactly you are hoping to show with it this week escapes me. For a long time MA has gone Democratic, with Clinton doing better than Obama? In February, in March, probably 3 weeks from now?

And Rhoda has a point: I like McCain, I give him credit for calling for a surge several years ago, and I've been worried by two gaffes now that seem to indicate he conflates all those Middle Eastern guys. In this case, having the media pay less atttention to him as they cover the Democratic slug fest is hurting the party.

Posted by Deborah | March 20, 2008 11:45 AM

south side:

You're right, these are serious times. I think many people here over-estimate how popular Democratic arguments are going to be on the economy and Iraq are going to be in November. While the Democrats highlight the poor state of the economy, they want to raise taxes (by allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire), which is the worst thing to do during a recession. Even though those tax rises will only by for more affluent Americans , it will still affect consumption and investment in the economy as a whole. The Democrats talk about the disaster that is the War in Iraq, but their solution is to declare defeat and withdraw, possibly leaving a much worse situation than now exists in the world's most volatile region. Do either of these policy prescriptions sound particularly responsible at this juncture?

I think the Democrats are doing a remarkable job of convincing Americans they are not ready to govern again.

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 11:46 AM

Any number of dems have Obama's future in their hands. the first one that says I can no longer support him based on twenty years in the trall of a man so willing to use hate speech and there might be a wholesale collapse of his campaign and prospects. It might only take one.
In this way it is all poised on a precipice. this is certainly a disaster for Obama, a disastrous place for his campaign and the party.

And Murtha -the most anti-war guy in the country- did endorse Hillary since the wright thing.

Posted by Michael C. | March 20, 2008 11:48 AM

Deborah:

No actually it is from March 18th:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/massachusetts/massachusetts_2008_presidential_election

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 11:49 AM

Tim K- you know, this entire time I've been reading Ambinder's blog I thought you were an HRC supporter. But when I read things like "they want to raise taxes by letting Bush's tax cuts expire" and "their solution is to declare defeat and withdraw", wow, my eyes are opened.
I suppose I could go into the details of how letting the tax cuts to the highest marginal bracket lapse actually benefits the middle class, or how leaving Iraq and fighting the actual terrorists elsewhere is not declaring defeat (oh, and by the way, the world's most volatile region is Afghanistan/Pakistan, where that Osama bin Laden guy is, not Iraq), but frankly, I'm still reeling. I thought you were a Hillary supporter.

Posted by south side | March 20, 2008 11:53 AM

While the Democrats highlight the poor state of the economy, they want to raise taxes (by allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire), which is the worst thing to do during a recession. Even though those tax rises will only by for more affluent Americans , it will still affect consumption and investment in the economy as a whole.

Actually, it's far and away the best thing to do during a recession, as long as that additional revenue is invested back into the economy. Two obvious ways to do that are through rebuilding infrastructure and developing sustainable sources of energy. Much better for the economy than the lame trickle-down effect you deem important.

Posted by lifelong democrat | March 20, 2008 11:54 AM

Good post, Maggie. I would add to that that if the Dems nominate Hillary it would also represent a failure of imagination. Hillary's only real claim to electability is that she's familiar. It's certainly not her stellar legislative record or her ability to inspire. If she was merely Senator Hillary Rodham from New York, do you think we'd even be talking about her?

Posted by howard b. | March 20, 2008 12:01 PM

south side:

I never thought Bush's tax cuts were a good idea. Taxes shouldn't have been lowered in the first place. As we should all recognize, public policy is a nuanced affair, and decisions cannot always be made based on ideology alone. It is simply a fact that times of poor economic performance are not the right time to be raising taxes hundreds of billions of dollars. I wouldn't be in favor of making the tax cuts permanent, that would be a disaster to the US treasury in the long term. But phasing them out over a number of years would be a more responsible course of action as part of more comprehensive fiscal stabilization plan. I actually do have confidence that, once in office, Clinton will behave responsibly just as Bill did. Remember he promised a middle class tax cut, but ended up raising taxes on the wealthy in order to eliminate the deficit.

On Iraq, the situation is so much more complicated than many anti-war Democrats care to admit. If the situation in that country deteriorates much further once the US withdraws will it have to re-invade?

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 12:10 PM

Maggie,

Thank you so much for your post. You are exactly right. Because the party is divided, and because Hillary (or both Clintons -- Bill should be playing a big part in this as a damn former Dem president) is so selfish, nobody is fighting back at the attacks based on Wright. Nobody is pointing out the fact that Wright wasn't so far off, or that what Wright said should NOT be automatically attributed to Obama. The Democratic Party should be fighting back but it can't because it's hamstrung with this ongoing primary battle.

I heard Pat Buchanan last night go off on Wright, including a comment about how Pat and other "Amurkins" don't want to hear people spitting on this country. What the hell did Wright say that spat on this country? Since when is it out of bounds to point out things your country is doing wrong, when it could do so much better? Buchanan was making it sound as though Wright was preaching black superiority, and he compared those YouTube spots to the speeches he heard (??) in the South that resulted in the bombing of the church in Alabama. WTF?? But because the party is so divided, Buchanan and his ilk (including Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, who did the same thing again this morning) are going unchallenged. Hell, when another guest on the show told Buchanan he should visit a black church one time to find out whether EVERYTHING being said was similar to the few clips being shown of Wright, Buchanan responded, "I don't need to because I don't want to hear that stuff!" These clowns are making it sound as though Wright ONLY said terrible things, and that Obama attended that church because he wanted to hear it.

I was so angry when I heard that. I'm still angry. Nobody is fighting back, and everybody should be. Hillary might end up winning this nomination, but given her and Bill's total silence in the face of this onslaught against Wright -- which I frankly see as an onslaught against black churches generally -- there's no way she's going to win the election.

On a different subject -- anybody who thinks Edwards can "deliver" NC to Clinton by endorsing her is dreaming. He wouldn't even have won here if he'd stayed in the race. He has officially become Mr. Irrelevant, regardless of the fact that the NFL draft is a few weeks away . . .

Posted by Amy | March 20, 2008 12:11 PM

Amy,

Someone else somewhere else posted that having Pat Buchanan comment on race relations is like having Nixon comment on government ethics.

Posted by neilrlca | March 20, 2008 12:18 PM

Amy:

"GOD DAMN AMERICA" ... asking your god to spite your country... how can that NOT be interpreted as spitting on the country? How about spreading vicious falsehoods like saying the US government is responsible for the HIV epidemic among African Americans?

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 12:21 PM

Tim K:

Thanks for the link. Here's the one for two weeks ago: www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index-3.html

So March 6 in Massachusetts, Obama > McCain by 49 to 42, and Clinton > McCain by 55 to 37.
March 20 in Massachusetts, Obama > McCain by 49 to 42, and Clinton > McCain by 54 to 39.

Still trying to grasp your point about how this shows Obama is slipping in Massachusetts. Actual math* appears to show that race moving not at all, and Clinton-McCain tightening very slightly but within the margin of error.

*Not, I realize, a happy topic in Clinton-land, per Marc's post.

Posted by Deborah | March 20, 2008 12:22 PM

neilrlca, thanks for the chuckle. The Nixon analogy is exactly right. I truly don't understand why MSNBC continues to have Buchanan speak about this issue. He is making his bigotry abundantly obvious -- so obvious that last night, my formerly Republican husband got angry enough that he took the time to go through the MSNBC.com site to find a way to give feedback about MSNBC TV, then he gave them feedback. I'm not sure they'll appreciate it or do anything about it, but there it is. I guess it's not okay to say something innocuous like "pimping out," but it IS okay to be an obvious, closed-minded bigot.

Posted by Amy | March 20, 2008 12:28 PM

Deborah:

Thanks for the link. It's very tricky to be comparing polls from two different polling organizations. I'd be more interested in knowing where Obama's numbers stand in the Survey USA polls today, or in the Rasmussen numbers three weeks ago so we could compare. Either way 49-42 in Massachusetts is a soft number for a Democrat.

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 12:30 PM

Everyone is forgetting that there will be debates between Mccain and whoever. Obama will crush him and Hillary will smoke him. People want something that will calm them in this trying time and McCain is not it.

Posted by thevoter | March 20, 2008 12:36 PM

We may be uberliberal in MA, but not necessarily on race. Far more segregated than AL, where I have family. Remember that the ugly bussing history comes from here.

I think Clinton also just is very popular. I don't know why (my own town went for Obama), but she is well-loved. Not among Rs, but they're outnumbered.

Obama's association with Deval Patrick probably does him no favors here. Patrick's been ineffectual as governor; the best one can say is that it's not clear his Republican competitor (or any of his D primary challengers) would be doing any better. Patrick is good at rousing speeches about hope, so having Obama associated with that doesn't help him in MA--we're watching Deval try to turn change into policy and barely staying afloat. Though, of course, he has our legislature, on whom we're always delighted to hang 60% of the blame for any impasses.

(I came to Obama via foreign policy and effectiveness at crafting and passing legislation, two things Patrick didn't have in his record. And while I voted for Patrick, it was a protest vote against 3 Republican governors--Weld, Celucci, Romney--who got bored and toddled off halfway through their terms. [Romney didn't resign, but was out of the state for 2/3 of his last year in office.] Bill Weld's coattails ran out at last.)

Posted by Deborah | March 20, 2008 12:48 PM

Barack Obama is a good man who was abandoned by his father and raised by his mom. He could have gone off the rails but he went to university worked hard and improved himself. Then he came out and worked as a organizer heping people. That is a American story.
Look at him now. As a 46 year old white women, I'm furious that people can attack this good man in this way. I take it very personally. We always want to destroy good people. We done it to JFK, RFK and now to a man of integrity like Obama.

Posted by Kathy Willet | March 20, 2008 1:17 PM

A SurrveyUSA poll out today has McCain TIED with Obama in MA at 47%.

Obama is finished.

He's falling behind big time in OH, FL, PA, MO, etc...

He's tied in Massachussetts for heaven's sake.

The Wright stuff has ruined him with White working class voters/Independents/Reagan Dems/whatever you want to call them.

The fun part will be to see how the party manages to hand Hillary the nomination despite her being behin in delegates and states and the popular vote.

I think they have to hope that she gets huge wins in PA, IN, and KY and is able to close the popular vote gap or at least close it to the point where FL puts her ahead. That'll be all the cover they need to toss Obama overboard.

Posted by super delegate | March 20, 2008 1:20 PM

If I read one more person who writes that the fact that Obama's (now-retired) minister several years ago said, in the context of a long and complex sermon, "God Damn America" means that Obama cannot get elected in November...well, I have no choice but to pull out my hair. But then again, if Americans aren't wise enough to understand that it was his pastor saying those words and not Obama, then we get the president we deserve and it sure won't be a transformative one. Please reassure me that most Americans aren't that dumb. Or are we?

Posted by just a person | March 20, 2008 1:23 PM

It's amusing to hear all the chatter in Punditopia and Blogorama that the extended primary battle loses all that valuable time Dems need to battle McCain.

If California had voted a week later, Obama would have won. Other states can say the same.

The public by and large has the attention span of a gnat.

Whether the donkey and the elephant go head to head for 6 months or 6 weeks, the majority of people have either already made up their minds or will do so at the 11:59th hour.

Because we are after all, monkeys. We don't like to think for ourselves, if we can let someone else influence us. You Tube being only the most current of a long history of evidence.

Posted by James Lawrence | March 20, 2008 1:25 PM

SUSA Poll shows McCain and Obama tied in.... FREAKING MASSACHUSETTS!!!!!

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=692c0281-9ce4-4c71-8e4f-b970d4ea8193

Say hello to President McCain!

Posted by apol | March 20, 2008 1:37 PM

In fact, I'd say that considering the nation's undivided attention to this all-important speech, which gave him an unrivaled opportunity to lift us out of racial and racist thinking, Obama blew it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oew-meyers20mar20,0,4038350.story

Posted by hector | March 20, 2008 1:38 PM

Tim K.

On "God Damn America":

Read the context of the speech, because it was conditional. "God Damn America, its in the Bible, for killing innocent people." Personally, I would say God Damn anyone who kills innocent people, regardless of if it is my country, my church, my government, my brother, sister, mother, father, cousin, or uncle. Wouldn't you? Do you think that those who kill innocent people are, or should be damned?

The US, has, whether we like it or not, committed atrocities. Witness things such as the treatment of American Indians, African-Americans, Hiroshima, Nagasaki - over half a million people have died as a result of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the majority of whom were innocent civilians - Japanese Americans during WWII (internment camps IN the US), Vietnam, Abu Graihb, the entire Iraq war. The list could continue.

So Rev. Wright is not just saying "I hate America," and leaving it at that. What he is saying is that, if the USA has killed innocent people, which it has, the Bible says that those who kill innocent people are damned. To say that all he said was "God damn america" is to not have listened to what he was saying. It is picking out a specific phrase that is objectionable.

Having said that, understand - I believe that the USA has changed, improved, and done a lot of good things: building a nation of free speech, and freedom, and espousing individual freedom's to the world, USAID - specifically aid to Africa and other countries across the world, preventing the spread of facism in WWII, rebuilding Germany and Japan after having conquered them, granting the right to vote to blacks and women (the greatest good here being the recognition of something unjust, and being able to correct it) - there is just as long a list of positive things.

But to ignore the negatives is to pretend that the US is perfect, and it is not. What makes the US what it is, is the understanding that people and countries are imperfect, but given the opportunity, the majority will do what is considered right and good, and will strive to improve themselves.

On the spread of HIV/AIDS and drugs by the US government to the black community:

I have not seen any proof of this, thus it is false as far as I can see. HOWEVER: The US Government DENIED treatment to 399 black men suffering from syphilis, while PRETENDING to treat them. This is the Tuskegee Experiment, ended in 1972 and exposed in 1975 - excuse my ignorance, but isn't that after the civil rights movement? So despite major wins for civil rights, deliberate maltreatment of the black community was continuing. This is yet another example of a US Government atrocity. This is fact, and has been proven.

Is it a far stretch then, to make the accusation that the government is spreading HIV and drugs? Honestly, I'm not sure. I don't feel like it is that much of a stretch, given the history of the US Government and its historical relationship to the black community. I don't personally believe that to be the case, but it is hard to deny that the US government has perpetrated ignominious acts on the black community before.

Posted by Alex | March 20, 2008 1:45 PM

Ah, the weight of history has Barack by the ankles and by george, Fox and Tapper say it's his fault.

If I didn't have two sons who will be paying with blood for the upcoming wars that we're about to elect, I'd laugh.

We voted for an idiot twice. Find a stats book and look up serial corrolation.

And one final thought: this is the way an empire ends, not with a bang but a slander.

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | March 20, 2008 1:45 PM

Just a quick notation.
Rasmussen keeps Obama with a 3 point lead and Gallup has Clinton down to 5 from 7 yesterday.
Taken by themselves, these numbers are not significant, and it is still too ealry to tell. But it does give the indication that Obama has bottomed out and is starting to rebound.

Posted by SonnyL. | March 20, 2008 1:51 PM

Is it a far stretch then, to make the accusation that the government is spreading HIV and drugs?

Yes, it is a stretch to claim that because the US govt has done terrible things in the past that means it is can be accused of being responsible for any terrible thing that has happened since. Is the CIA responsible for investing multi-drug resistant TB? This is just paranoid delusion.

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 1:56 PM

You also have to keep in mind that Obama is the only candidate getting pounded by the press for a week. Once the press starts vetting Clinton and her husband's business dealings, her polling numbers will drop. Remember, she has fluffed her resume, and the Clinton library WILL be a BIG problem. These are just a few items on the HRC's problem list of greatest hits.

Another thing is that the press refuses to scrutinize John McCain. This man is the real media creation. While he knows nothing about our failing economy and his foreign policy is about bombing Iran, all the media can do is treat him like your cute and cuddly grandpa. Once (or if) America figures out this man is truly a warmonger in the face of America's economic crisis, his poll numbers will definitely drop.

Posted by die berlinerin | March 20, 2008 2:02 PM

What Marc's analytic brain knows is that momentum has yet to have a significant effect in this race. What Marc's analytic brain also knows is that even if Clinton did get a little momentum, it is too late for that to matter, because they are not going to revote all the states which have already voted.

I think this is a fundamental problem the Clinton dead-enders have never grasped: Obama has too many delegates in the bank already for it to be realistic for Clinton to catch up, even if she starts doing somewhat better. In that sense, this isn't like watching polls before election day, because most of "election day" has already happened.

Posted by DTM | March 20, 2008 2:03 PM

Survey USA, one of the pollsters with the highest accuracy rates, is showing Barack Obama in free-fall everywhere. A tie in Massachusetts and Minnseota (worse than Clinton in both), far behind in Missouri, Ohio and a non-factor in Kentucky. These are disastrous numbers for a Democrat in a Democratic year. They aren't particularly encouraging numbers for Clinton either, but at least she has been stable and remains competitive in the large swing states.

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 2:04 PM

This statement is not so cognitively dissonant:

"To put it crudely, the analyst's emotional brain feels momentum for Hillary; the analyst's analytical brain can't quite figure out how Obama loses."

It is the natural result of one candidate staying in the race after she has lost.

Posted by George | March 20, 2008 2:05 PM

Democrats are so pathetically self destructive, and I'm a Democrat. We fall for Republican head games in every election, we beat up our own candidates, we let Republicans define the issues and our candidates, we overreact and waver on our own beliefs, and it's happening again. Hillary's supporters really want her to win, and so do Obama's, that's fine, but when you hear both saying that they won't vote for the other in a general election all I can say is that's why Republicans win presidential elections.

Now we're buying the Republican spin that one or both our potential candidates can't win in the fall. The only way that is possible is if Democrats make it happen.

Look at our fundraising advantage, voter turn out advantage, issue advantage on healthcare, Iraq, and the economy. If interested Democrats support the Democratic candidate, that person will win. If Obama supporters stay home or Hillary's fans vote for McCain for whatever reason, we'll get another Republican president, a more conservative Supreme Court, more Iraq, more national debt...and we'll deserve it.

Posted by Jay | March 20, 2008 2:06 PM

I dunno, Marc. Even Obama shill-in-chief Matt drudge is noting Obama's poll dive. This is from an article he linked to today:

The latest Gallup daily tracking poll found Clinton pulling into a seven-point lead nationally over Obama, 49 percent to 42 percent. It was Clinton's first statistically significant lead over Obama in more than a month. "The initial indications are that the speech has not halted Clinton's gaining momentum, as she led by a similar margin in Tuesday night's polling as compared to Monday night's polling," Gallup said. The poll also found Republican nominee-elect John McCain benefiting from the Democratic brawling. The Arizona senator had an edge of 47 percent to 43 percent over Obama, and a lead of 48 percent to 45 over Clinton. Another survey by Rasmussen gave Obama a favorable rating of 48 percent among voters. Just before the Wright videos emerged last week, Obama's rating was 52 percent. CBS News poll numbers showed Obama still just ahead of Clinton among Democratic primary voters -- 46 percent to 43. But a month ago, his margin was far wider at 54 percent to 38.

source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080320160022.mr0alglh&show_article=1

I think it's beginning to unravel for the guy, myself. I can't see the superdelegates failing to go en masse for Hillary if these trends continue. And this is all with nary a peep from the Rezko trial. If the latter starts to kick in a source of Obamatrouble, he really is toast.

Posted by Maximom | March 20, 2008 2:08 PM

He is your nominee. The more people accept that the better.
The sooner this thing is over and it will blow over. Cause we Hagee/Parsley to this the better. In a week things will be much better.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 20, 2008 2:17 PM

I think Hillary should stay in this until the end of the primaries and then drop out if the superdelegates don't break her away en masse. Now that the Wright controversy has come out she can't really be blamed for causing his defeat anymore. He's caused his own defeat.

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 2:20 PM

You are only paranoid if "they" are not out to get you.

I can understand your point, but as far as I can tell (and I haven't heard or read all of Rev. Wright's speeches, so I don't know for sure), he is not accusing the government of every terrible thing since. Only very specific things.

As I said, I personally don't believe it, and I think that the majority of people don't believe it, but I don't believe that it is entirely outrageous to make the claim, based on past history.

Posted by Alex | March 20, 2008 2:20 PM

John Kerry agrees with Ferraro:

According to MSNBC, via NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli; In an interview giving to a N.H. newspaper on Tuesday, Kerry speaking on the race speech said that Obama would be uniquely qualified to bridge the divide with the Islamic world and to empower moderate Islam. when asked by the reporter about the rational behind his assertion, Kerry said "because he's a black man"...

"Speaking of the race speech from Tuesday, Obama supporter John Kerry gave an interview with a local N.H. paper, reports NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli. In it, Kerry said the color of Obama's skin makes him uniquely qualified for president and even reach out to the moderate Islam world. During an interview with the New Bedford Standard Times, portions of which were posted on YouTube, John Kerry says bluntly that Barack Obama has the potential to "bridge the divide in religious extremism" because he is black...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vASmAfrBSs&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/20/133938/471/194/480841

Will Obama call Kerry a racist?!?!?

Posted by Andrew P. | March 20, 2008 2:22 PM

That, of course, is the other great myth of the Clinton dead-enders: that the superdelegates are likely to do anything "en masse". In fact, the superdelegates are all sorts of different people with different agendas who have gotten to this position in different ways. And as a result, they are very likely to split their vote unless one of the contestants gives up.

But I guess the Clinton dead-enders have to believe in the superdelegates acting as one big hive mind, because otherwise the math won't work.

Posted by DTM | March 20, 2008 2:26 PM

The way Obama is collapsing in the polls, the following could very well happen:

PA 62-38 HRC, +30 delegates
IN 55-45 HRC, +4 delegates
NC 54-46 HRC, +9 delegates
WV 62-38 HRC, +8 delegates
KY 65-35 HRC, +13 delegates
OR 53-47 HRC, +4 delegates
PR 60-40 HRC, +7 delegates
MT 55-45 HRC, +2 delegates
SD 55-45 HRC, +1 delegate

Obamas lead among pledged delegates would be cut to around 90... Now, with revotes in FL, MI:

FL 60-40 HRC, +31 delegates
MI 55-45 HRC, +12 delegates

With Obamas lead down to about 50 pledged delegates and losing 11 straight, I predict that automatic delegates will do the responsible thing and award the nomination to Sen. Clinton.

Posted by eric1974 | March 20, 2008 2:31 PM

eric1974, you almost had me until you made that reference to "automatic delegates." Sheesh.

Posted by Amy | March 20, 2008 2:40 PM

eric1974's scenario for the remaining contests is pure fantasy ... and it still only gets Clinton within about 90!

That really tells you all you need to know.

Posted by DTM | March 20, 2008 2:45 PM

So what you're saying is being withing a 50 delegate spread and losing 11 straight contests means it should go to the other side.

You realize that if that was the responsible thing to do, this would have been over already.

All I can see in this entire race is that each side thinks the second it swings in their direction that the writing is on the wall and it's over. The die-hards of both camps are beyond redemption and will never bridge their divides. The question is how can either side win the general if their voting segment of the population loathes the other candidate to the point of distorting reality to serve their mindsets.

Posted by kildy | March 20, 2008 2:45 PM

eric1974

This ignores several items - based on the way the race has run to this point, it is unlikely that a) HRC will win all of the final 10 contests; and b) that she will win by the margins you suggest.

Additionally, the Florida re-vote idea has gone down the tubes, and it looks like Michigan may follow it. The other idea for Florida being floated right now is to award half of the delegates based on the primary, with the other half being awarded based on the national vote. This would result in a minimal increase for HRC - likely a net of 10. The same logic would apply to Michigan, if they went that route.

Posted by Alex | March 20, 2008 2:47 PM

kildy,

The good news is that the people arguing on these blogs are not exactly representative of the electorate as a whole.

Posted by DTM | March 20, 2008 2:48 PM

The superdelegates should excercise independent judgment and nominate the candidate who will win the White House for the Democrats.

Posted by Tim K | March 20, 2008 2:57 PM

It's a good thing to hope for (that the slice of people in the media and on the internet are not representative of anything), my bitter side thinks that come the general there will be a lot of resentment to heal on the Dem side of the fence, giving them the perfect method of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.. again.

Posted by kildy | March 20, 2008 2:59 PM

From Ben Smith's Politico blog today:

It's not just Clinton surrogates who say surprising things about race.

Check out John Kerry's explanation, in the interview with a Massachusetts paper above, saying that Obama can help "bridge the divide of religious extremism."

Why? he's asked.

"Because he's African-American. Because he's a black man," he says (around 0:44 in the video above), citing Obama's roots in "a place of oppression and repression."

It's a tricky argument for a campaign navigating between "race doesn't matter" --as the crowd memorably chanted in South Carolina -- and arguments that race is an explicit plus. Kerry, for instance, chided Ferraro for saying Obama is winning because he's black (which is a different, but related, argument to saying he'll be a better president because he's black).

Bonus Obama surrogate today: Claire McCaskill gives a quote to the Kansas City paper that won't make an earlier generation of black candidates happy:

“He, for the first time, I think, as a black leader in America, has come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader,” McCaskill said.

Posted by ezr | March 20, 2008 2:59 PM

Tim K,

First, that is unlikely to be the only criterion the various superdelegates use. Indeed, they will undoubtedly approach their decision in many different ways.

Second, even on the limited issue of electability, Democrats can and do disagree.

This is one of your many basic conceptual problems: you can't just assume that all of the superdelegates will end up having the same opinion on an issue as complicated as who is most likely to win the general election. So, although your fantasy scenarios tend to end with an overw