The Democratic Race: Square One

Still in light-posting mode until later in the week, I want to expand a bit on my post yesterday about the VandeHei/Allen theorem and the Democratic presidential race.

Regular readers of this blog know that I reached the conclusion more than a month ago that Barack Obama is likely to be nominated by the Democrats, although a Clinton comeback was possible, although not likely.

That's still where I am.

What I don't know, and what I can't predict, is how Obama will the nomination and what effects the end of the race will have on his general election viability. To many readers, particularly those who support Obama, my temporizing probably seems extraneous. But willing the future does not make it come any more quickly.

Hillary Clinton could win Pennsylvania (although I think it may be closer than one would expect -- Obama begins a six-day bus tour later this week) and Indiana, and then North Carolina (there may be a second debate and her advisers are internally conflicted about her chances there) and then Puerto Rico, where sixteen years of Clintonian good will makes her a near-prohibitive favorite. Do these victories suddenly produce a burst of momentum and convince the superdelegates that she's a better candidate than he is?

Probably not. Obama wins -- but he wins with a party that is increasingly divided. He wins with a little less than half the party consciously choosing someone else. He wins on the downslope. That's a tough place for him to be.

Now, the Obama campaign and many long-time Democrats are making the obvious counter-point that if Hillary Clinton were to get out now, these potential problems would not problems at all. Indeed, they argue that the only reason why Obama is likely to win the nomination and be damaged by the process is precisely because Hillary Clinton cannot accept that she is likely to lose. They argue that this is inherently unfair to Obama and to the party. So long as Obama is a few hundred delegates short of 2024, is there any other way to push Hillary Clinton out of the race?

Some Obama advisers believe that, right after Pennsylvania, Bill Clinton will become cognizant of the damage he has caused to his own legacy, and Hillary Clinton will begin to worry about her future in the Senate, and enough donors, fearful of being cut off by the new Obama power center, will force their hands. Others are preparing for trench warfare all the way to the convention.

Is the press somehow complicit in this state of affairs? They -- we -- are an easy target. But there are a few more suspects to consider. The party elders, as I've written, haven't forced anyone out of the race. The superdelegates are NOT making up their minds. And many, many Democratic voters are still expressing their preference for another candidate.

Comments

This is the same argument we had on Iraq.
Is it the media's fault for playing the drumbeat to war and ignoring critics of the war?
Or the politicians' fault for not standing up and taking a strong stand against it, thus giving the media something to cover?

In the end, though, the only one who can get Hillary out of the race is Hillary herself. She has only one question to ask: Does she want to be remembered as someone who put her own personal ambition over the good of the party and country?

Posted by Mike | March 25, 2008 10:57 AM

Marc you never cease to amaze me. Your dispassionate analysis is always a breath of fresh air compared to the sensational tack taken by other bloggers and even journalists in the MSM. Fascinating.

Posted by Mr. Spock | March 25, 2008 10:57 AM

Do these victories suddenly produce a burst of momentum and convince the superdelegates that she's a better candidate than he is?

Again with the Big Lie, while purporting to be a no-BS analysis.

The reason that she could win every single primary between Pennsylvania to Montana and not "convince" the delegates has nothing to do with who is the better candidate.

Not only that, if she were to win an overwhelming margin of the white and Hispanic vote, the superdelegates would know she's a better risk than he is.

The reason they might not give it to her anyway is because if Obama wouldn't be a good sport about it, they are worried that African Americans would go ballastic.

Or, as Jack Kelly says:

If Sen. Clinton's opponent were Barry O'Bama, charming Irish-American pol with the gift of gab, these arguments would have more resonance. But, as columnist Bob Novak notes, the super delegates "fear antagonizing African-Americans, who have become the hard-core Democratic base." Geraldine Ferraro, who Sen. Obama unfairly likened to his racist pastor, was right. Sen. Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he weren't black.

Many who suspect Sen. Clinton is right about Sen. Obama's electability still would rather nominate him than her. Better to lose an election than to split the party. Besides, if angry blacks stay home in November, Hillary won't be electable, either.

Why not say that, rather than pretend they all just really aren't sure?

You know that. So why don't you say that?

Posted by Cal | March 25, 2008 11:04 AM

I enjoy the blog, but your argument here is a bit weak. Yes, voters are picking another candidate. But many voters were picking Huckabee and Paul while McCain was seen as the inevitable winner (much as Obama is now), yet those two were covered far differently than Hillary.

The press decided that even though Huckabee was winning states (moreso than Hillary at the time), McCain was certain to win the nomination, so they essentially ignored Huckabee. Not so with Sen. Clinton. To not acknowledge the difference and the effect this difference has on the general public is dishonest.

Posted by DCWolverine | March 25, 2008 11:06 AM

In the end, though, the only one who can get Hillary out of the race is Hillary herself.

Very true. And the logic of continuing--she's already in a position to drop out, endorse Obama, and be the go-to rescuer if he's found standing over a dead body--is completely absent. He's already been toughened.

Looking back on her early arguments about readiness, working hard, etc, I've decided she expected to be given the nomination based on being such a hard worker. That message didn't resonate with quite enough voters, so now it's made to the supers. When they say they won't overthrow the pledged delegates, she concludes, not that she's failed, but that they haven't quite perceived that she is a harder worker than Obama, more ready, etc. She must work even harder! The kitchen sink is thrown, and more supers express displeasure at the tone of the race, and she concludes that, very unfairly, they still don't understand that she is more deserving of the nomination. But she'll play on any field out there, and on she plugs....

In her interview with the Philly Inquirer, she explains that she can close the pledged delegate gap by getting more pledged delegates to switch their vote to her--they're just like superdelegates. While her campaign argues out of one side of its mouth that MI and FL must have their votes counted, it argues out of the other side that every other state, territory, or group that has already voted should be disenfranchised to give her the nomination.

And, yes, when the media reports on the MI/FL half of that, and not on the "who cares what all those earlier voters voted" tactic, you do look a bit complicit in keeping the drama going.

Posted by Deborah | March 25, 2008 11:09 AM

VandeHei and Allen are just attention-getters. There "bold analysis" is as wacky as the media pundits propping up a close race that they so disparage.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | March 25, 2008 11:09 AM

I think if Clinton wins Pennsylvania by less than 10% of the vote she should strike a unifying tone in her victory speech and prepare to withdraw from the race from a position of great strength. (she would, after all, be the number one loser - by far - in the modern era of Democratic party primaries).

If she wins by closer to 15% or more I think that sends a huge signal that Democrats want the race to continue and she should.

It all comes down to Pennsylvania. Obama better get on that bus of his.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 11:10 AM

Yes, voters are picking another candidate. But many voters were picking Huckabee and Paul while McCain was seen as the inevitable winner (much as Obama is now), yet those two were covered far differently than Hillary.

Were over half the voters picking Huckabee when McCain was "seen as the inevitable winner"?

And just who is seeing Obama as "the inevitable winner", anyway? Certainly not the voters thus far.

Posted by Cal | March 25, 2008 11:12 AM

What makes this post just a bit strange is how there is no comment on the "Hillary could win PA, and then IN, and then NC..."

In only one of these states is she clearly ahead--in PA, in both IN and NC, Obama has some significant leads.

A bit more attention to actual data--like current polls--in this regard might be nice.

Posted by "could win" | March 25, 2008 11:13 AM

The point was made in the earlier comment thread, but it bears repeating: if the superdelegates moved en masse right now, do you think the Clinton campaign will go quietly? Not a chance. They will scream bloody murder, play victim and blame everything on Obama. Witness their continued desperate spin re: Michigan and Florida. They will piss and moan, and sadly, take Hillary's supporters with her. And, in the end, that leaves Obama too weak to win the general.

A classier, more reality-based candidate would see the writing on the wall, drop out of the race graciously and unite the party behind Obama for the general election. But she's chosen not to do that. The supers are doing the right thing by letting this thing play out. Hillary is, unbelievably, the only one that can re-unite the party, by graciously conceding.

Posted by Ready for change | March 25, 2008 11:14 AM

I disagree that it should all come down to Pennsylvania! Why there? Because Clinton is way up there and Clinton supporters want the argument to end where Clinton looks good. PA is no more special than any other state.

This is getting bad for the Democratic Party. McCain's numbers are going up and the negatives on both Dems are going down.

Posted by Beth in VA | March 25, 2008 11:15 AM

Marc,

I think this all gets to the issue of uncertainty: as long as there's a case to be made, no matter how marginal, that Hillary will win the election, the press will devote significant time to mulling that over. Yes, the media is an easy target. On the other hand, the Clinton "We Win Elections" brand seems to have taken hold of the Democratic discourse in a very real way. If we took the mirror image of the state of the campaign, Obama wouldn't be getting any love from the press is a valid one. I'd like someone to perform a serious, introspective analysis of why that is the case.

Posted by Statler | March 25, 2008 11:16 AM

You're right- it's not just the media. I suspect that this current bout of saying that Clinton can't win will be seen as media bias (as they are calling it at Taylor Marsh's blog), sexism, piling on or whatever. Plenty of people have bought into the Clinton myth in this country. Hell, if Bush could get re-elected in 2004, then buying into Clinton winning is easy for many people.

Posted by Lesley | March 25, 2008 11:19 AM

Yes, yes, yes, that is the interesting question to be analyzed: Why aren't more superdelegates making up their minds?

And relatedly, why do we only see individual superdelegates popping up at odd intervals to side for one candidate or the other? Do they not speak to one another? Might their influence in tipping the balance not be greater if they declared their support in small groups?

And why has there been no movement toward a formal offer of conditional support? If the explanation is really that the superdelegates are loathe to take any action that devalues the votes of future primaries, there is an obvious solution. A petition could be drafted where the signatories commit to supporting the winner of the pledged delegate race but reserve the right to change their views should unanticipated disqualifying information arise in the interim. Such a statement would affirm the value of future voting while maintaining the discretion of the fence sitters (and once signed almost surely reduce the unwanted pressure from advocates of both camps).

Posted by steve | March 25, 2008 11:20 AM

Cal:
I read that Jack Kelly piece. He seems to like the idea of doing a poll in June and giving the nomination to whoever's ahead that week. Why exactly we bothered holding 50-odd primaries is not explained. (Oh, right. Hillary loses if we go by votes.)

The idea that only the black part of Obama's coalition drops out (as you and he argue) is silly. The "go to the back of the bus" argument is particularly offensive against a black candidate, but it wouldn't be holding water against Joe Biden or John Edwards, either. NO ONE likes that argument except die-hard Clinton supporters, who at this point would seemingly take a message from Putin ("Ve prefer Hillary, even if she tinks I haf no soul.") as proof that she should be handed the nomination despite a conspicuous inability to win it at the voting box.

Were over half the voters picking Huckabee when McCain was "seen as the inevitable winner"?
Err, yes, in several states. Weren't you watching?

Posted by Deborah | March 25, 2008 11:21 AM

"Some Obama advisers believe that, right after Pennsylvania, Bill Clinton will become cognizant of the damage he has caused to his own legacy, and Hillary Clinton will begin to worry about her future in the Senate, and enough donors, fearful of being cut off by the new Obama power center, will force their hands."

Those advisers are delusional. The Clintons are not going to quit. WJC has always taken the long view of his "legacy," and believes (inaccurately, imo) that he can rehabilitate it. We may be able to avoid a brokered convention because the top superdelegates will hopefully step up in June, but she's not stopping before PR.

I agree that the supers and party elders are as responsible for this mess as Clinton and the media. They've shown zero courage in Congress, so I suppose it should not be surprising they are showing zero courage dealing with this election. Their behavior, and lack of action to help stop what looks like an inevitable loss in Nov, is still deeply disappointing, however.

btw -- this is a much better and more balanced post than your stab yesterday.

Posted by evie | March 25, 2008 11:25 AM

Beth in VA:

Well I think it's pretty clear you'd like for Clinton to drop out any time, the sooner the better. So, for that reason, you (and other Obama supporters) don't have much credibility in suggesting when the best time is for Clinton to withdraw. The reason Pennsylvania is important is because 1) It's the next contest, 2) It's a big state with a lot of delegates and votes, and 3) It's an important state for Democrats in the general election. Although even if Clinton wins by more than 10% in Pennsylvania, I think she needs to then go on to win Indiana and West Virginia and at least come close in North Carolina.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 11:29 AM

It all comes down to Pennsylvania.
It does not. The votes of everyone else, both past (Clinton camp: pledged delegates aren't bound by their stupid voters) and future (Clinton camp: it all comes down to Pennsylvania, one of those rare states we can actually win), still count, no matter what Mark Penn spins.

Steve: I think the basic superdelegate problem is that they are completely unorganized. I do hold out some hope that the over-the-top condemnation of Richardson ("ungrateful!" "disloyal!" "Judas!" "he watched the super bowl with Bill; he has no right to give his endorsement elsewhere!!!!!*") will move a few more off the bench. Overall, closing up the super gap so that it's just the pledged delegate gap (and a few reminders that the votes selecting those pledged delegates will count) would be a reasonable strategy over the next few weeks.

*Yes, Carville, in his follow-ups, is making this argument. Be very wary of whom you watch any future sporting events with; you may unknowingly be pledging yourself to vote for their relatives for years to come.

Posted by Deborah | March 25, 2008 11:31 AM

Tim K- honest question: how can you square the idea that superdelegates shouldn't move now, when there are 10 states remaining, with the fact that Clinton had close to 100 superdelegates before Iowa? And if 100 superdelegates were to endorse Obama today, do you think Clinton would (or should) keep campaigning?

Posted by Ready for change | March 25, 2008 11:33 AM

I actually think this post is much better than the previous one on the same subject, which was marred by some inadequate assumptions about why the race was playing out as it was. No such assumptions affect the argument here. I support Obama, but of course Clinton can run as long as she wants. It's not the job of the press to tell her to stop, or even to speculate about the consequences of a long campaign. Marc is right to put the responsibility for making such arguments on the shoulders of the party elders, whose silence, I submit, has more to do with timing than any real reticence.

Posted by alex | March 25, 2008 11:35 AM

Most outside observers expect that Sen. Clinton will do quite well in Puerto Rico; I will be very curious to see how they spin its importance to the campaign.
My understanding is that PR does not have any electoral college votes and therefore does not directly influence the GE. The Clinton campaign certainly will have to argue that the PR primary is a decisive win but it doesn't clearly lend itself one of their many election narratives.

Posted by sven | March 25, 2008 11:40 AM

People with 1300 - 1600 delegates just do not drop out of races without taking delegates to the convention and using delegate strength to help write the party platform. It is like obama supporters were born yesterday and know nothing of the past.
ANYTHING can happen at the convention.
Damage her future by not getting out now?

Did Teddy damage his future or the party by going to the convention and trying to keep party from picking the wrong candidate?
So, stop making up silly arguments.
Obama can't win right now without her or her delegates so obama folks cry lies instead of tears.

Posted by Michael C. | March 25, 2008 11:52 AM

Ready for Change:

If 100 superdelegates endorsed Obama today Clinton would probably have to drop out. I say *probably* because I doubt very much she is going to drop out before Pennsylvania. If Clinton did worse than expected in PE and THEN 100 supers endorsed Obama, she should drop out.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 11:54 AM

Why exactly we bothered holding 50-odd primaries is not explained.

Because in most cases, the primaries reveal momentum that allows everyone to accept the candidate.

There's no question that it wasn't intended to be the final say, or there wouldn't be superdelegates.

Err, yes, in several states. Weren't you watching?

He didn't win over 50% constantly. His vote continually diminished. That's what usually happens in the Democratic primaries as well. Not this time.

The idea that only the black part of Obama's coalition drops out (as you and he argue) is silly.

You are completely missing the point. First, no one cares about Obama's non-black supporters, because for the most part they're liberals. They can go whistle--there aren't enough of them to matter. That's why Obama is behind in the overall Democratic vote.

But the point is that the superdelegates apparently feel that they can't vote for Hillary because they don't want to risk the black vote for decades. In other words, because Obama's black, he gets the black vote. And because he's black, they can't make the usual case that he's not electable.

Thus, Ambinder's statement is incorrect. Whether or not the superdelegates feel Clinton is the better candidate, Obama's skin color makes their decision for her much more difficult. They can't decide on merit.

Posted by Cal | March 25, 2008 11:58 AM

You will never convince me that this election is about Hillary winning the nomination. This about The Clintons getting a third term.

What you are witnessing is just how hard it is to defeat an encumbant. Period. There is always a solid base of support that will opt every time for more of the same in a primary process. The party Elders don't want to go against the incumbent either. She had so many supers to begin with because she was seen as the incumbent. That is what has kept Hillary in this for so long. That is what she has counted on for so long and will continue to count on all the way to Denver.

When was the last time that an insurgent overtook an incumbent in the primaries? It's the nature of things - There is not more support for Hillary out there to be had - all she can do is keep Obama from getting more and then win the nomination by default.

Who and what is to blame? - Allowing The Clintons to run for a third term in the first place - everything else is to be expected.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 25, 2008 11:59 AM

Tim K- thanks for the response. I think your take is correct, and even as an Obama supporter, I agree she should campaign at least until PA. I just wish she'd stop engaging in the McCain praise or suggesting that Obama is actively disenfranchising Michigan and Florida voters. (I know you disagree about MI and FL - let's save that one for another time!) and instead re-focus on her own positive case. I liked her much better as a candidate when she did that.

Posted by Ready for change | March 25, 2008 12:09 PM

"Allowing The Clintons to run for a third term in the first place - everything else is to be expected."

Exactly: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 25, 2008 12:12 PM

Ready for Change:

Here's the problem about these attacks. It isn't at all helpful to the party for Clinton to be questioning Obama's readiness to be Commander-in-Chief. I wouldn't call it praising McCain, by the way, just stating the obvious fact that he is more experienced than Obama is. The problem is the argument, made in the 3:00 AM Ad, was her strongest and most persuasive argument. The same goes for the Obama campaign's constant attacks on Clinton's character and trustworthiness. They are nasty and divisive attacks, and bad for the party, but they can be effective. It's tough to get any candidate to fight a competitive race like this with one hand tied behind their back.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 12:20 PM

It saddens me to say as a 62 year old WASP that the blacks aren't the only ones who will blow off the Clinton candidacy if she's nominated.

Calling on my knowledge that we are all black somewhere back in our distant gene pool, I decry the petty, venal politics that have culminated in this low-rent campaign, the tone of which has been clearly set by the Clintons.

She's done, but she's so determined to have her place in history, she will fulfill the old prophecy:

"argue for your limitations, and you (the nation) shall have them."

We deserve better. Obama is that better. But the meanness and jealousy of lesser-talented, less-evolved people who oppose him may prevent this nation from getting what it needs most: a new direction away from this kind of garbage that we're getting every day.

By the way, I was dodging bullets en route to my keyboard to post this comment...oopsie, sorry, I misspoke...it was just the tv.

Posted by James Lawrence | March 25, 2008 12:27 PM

James:

Give me a break. Listen to some of David Plouffe's conference calls these days. The Obama campaign is negative and personal.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 12:37 PM

Hillary Clinton in 2016, "Reviving the Dream," in 2016.

Posted by jeffrey | March 25, 2008 12:40 PM

There's no way HRC is backing out now and, when she does, it will not be quiet or pretty. More like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ-IG8qKaJI

It's clearer than ever that HRC's campaign has zip to do with the country or the party - it's all about Hill and Bill. They truly believe that what's best for them is what's best for the country, not the reverse.

Imagine if HRC had dropped out... She - and John Edwards - could be actively campaigning in all those purple areas of upcoming states, keeping those white working-class voters on the blue side of the aisle. The party would come together to strengthen the platform for November.

Instead, we have both Clintons actively campaigning as much for John McCain as HRC. They'd rather see the GOP stay in the White House than have HRC lose the nomination. The media should be calling them out on this. They should not allow her to get by with saying she "misspoke" when she flat-out lied on more than one occasion. Demand those tax returns, especially now that Obama's are posted online in their entirety.

Don't be intimidated by Wolfson & Co. When he answers a legitimate question with only an attack on Obama, don't let him get away with it! Ask the question until he directly answers it. If he doesn't, put it on the record that he refuses to do so. It's really not that hard.

Ultimately, I think a lot of this has to do with Bill Clinton. Like the GQ editors, MSM is scared to death of losing access to the former president. Same goes for the party leaders...

That's why Bill Richardson's move took guts. He's trying to save not just Obama, but the Democratic party, from being sliced to death by Bill and Hill - the party's own Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett.

Posted by JR | March 25, 2008 12:49 PM

Cal,

What universe to you live in? Barack Obama has won 14 of the last 17 elections, many times winning with over 60% of the vote. At one point, he won 11 straight states (Huckabee actually won a couple of states int hat time period, unlike Hillary).

On the other hand, Hillary was won 3 of the last 17 states, Ohio, Rhode island and Texas. And in texas, she actually got less delegates because of the Caucus system. So basically, she's had 2 wins out of the last 17 contests.

The idea that he's winning only because he is black is incredibly glib and stupid. African Americans were incredibly small parts of many of those states, as you well know. So why hide behind the racial illogic of Geraldine Ferraro?

The math, as Marc and others have repeatedly pointed out, is against Hillary Clinton. We know, you know it and they know it. The only reason to stay in is ego. Let's be clear about that.

The Clinton campaign, and their lackies, have yet to put out a plausible scenario for winning the nomination. Even they admit the only way to win is an utter collapse by Obama. But yet they persist, ignoring the immense damage they do to the party. And supporters such as yourself do immense damage as well, ignoring facts and figures while asserting race as the main causation.

Posted by dcwolverine | March 25, 2008 12:54 PM

Reverend Wright mad some very harsh comments and I believe his intent was to underscore how this nation has been in regards to race relations and how it still is in a lesser extent. We all know that there have been vast improvements, but we still have a ways to go.. Reverend Wright's comments were in some respect suppose to entertain, uplift, question, and criticize. Did HE go to far, yes emphatically! However, Obama should not pay the price for another man's commentary. The Clinton's did not have a problem inviting him to the White House. We can learn from those who make mistakes even if the people who make them might not realize that they are. And less face it, criticizing America does not mean you do love this country. We should be able to have constructive dialogue despite gender, color, sexuality, religion, or party affiliation. That is what drew me to Obama. His campaign was trying to be what MOST Americans claim that this nation is all about. INCLUSION IN THE AMERICAN DREAM!

Posted by jeffrey | March 25, 2008 12:55 PM

jefferey,

I think you nailed it, though I expect it's 2012 and not 2016, a Clinton redo of 1992.

The longer this process drags out, the better for Hillary. Either she somehow pulls the nomination, or she damages Obama so bad he loses in the fall. This latter scenario would suit Hillary fine, as she can return as the savior of the Democrats in 2012 to defeat an unpopular sitting Republican president like her hubby did 20 years before.

Hillary's only real fear is that Obama wins in the fall. And I'm sure should he get the nomination, the Clintonites will be pulling out all the behind-the-scenes stops to make sure that's doesn't happen.

Posted by Naveen | March 25, 2008 1:00 PM

The idea that he's winning only because he is black is incredibly glib and stupid.

No, he's winning because he's black and liberal. No way would he ever have won Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland if he hadn't been black.

He won the caucuses because he's liberal.

Barack Obama has won 14 of the last 17 elections, many times winning with over 60% of the vote.

Here are the state primaries that he won during that time: Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin.

Gosh. What do three of those four states have in common? And in the fourth, he lost white Democrats but benefited from a huge percentage of independents/Republicans (1 in 3).

The Clinton campaign, and their lackies, have yet to put out a plausible scenario for winning the nomination.

But that's precisely my point. Normally, it would be extremely plausible to argue that the Democrats shouldn't put up an incredibly liberal candidate who can't even win a majority of Democratic voters.

The reason it's not plausible is Obama's skin color.

Posted by Cal | March 25, 2008 1:06 PM

Wow. As of today, Obama has a 21-point lead in North Carolina.

Posted by Abby | March 25, 2008 1:18 PM

And yet again what does North Carolina have? Lot's of African Americans. Surprise surprise!

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 1:28 PM

We should judge a person by their actions and not their words.

The fact that Obama choose Mr. Wright as his spiritual teacher for 20 years and included Mr. Wright in his election staff speaks well for Mr. Obama’s thinking and actions. Words are easy to manipulate and it is UNLIKELY that Obama's recent race speech was written by Mr. Obama himself, but of course written by his spin machine.

And regardless that he is ‘fashionably black’ and that many of you have some desire to prove to yourself or to others that you are not prejudice and that you like ‘black people’ with an attitude of ‘See, I like black people, I’m voting for a black person,’ such an attitude of voting for a person because of their race is the definition of prejudice.

But it seems to me if Mr. Obama had a lighter skin tone, there is no way he would be tolerated in as much he is aligned with a violent religious group, and never says anything substantial. And not only that, consider yesterday’s announcement that the chief of the firm involved in the State Department’s passport breach is Obama’s adviser. And that Obama has been caught lying about Rezko, regarding the amount of money Rezko gave him, and that Obama still hasn’t come clean about his Rezko land deal.

If Obama were to become president, what would stop Mr. Obama from appointing Mr. Wright to his cabinet? And to be sure, if anyone complained about Mr. Wright’s appointment, they would be called racist.

We should have as our country’s leader someone with wisdom and knowledge regardless of race, not someone hungry for power for the sake of power.

Out of all the 300 million people in America, is this really who you want for president – blindly popular with young people, power hungry, deceptive, vague, and coldly self-centered - is there a better definition of a potential Anti-Christ?

Posted by Ola Dug | March 25, 2008 2:10 PM

Uh, Cal, nice try, but you obviously glossed over a few things, called facts.

In Maryland and VA, Obama split whites with Hillary and won almost every age group.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/12/dem.polls/

In those states, he dominated Clinton. Further, in polling, he runs even or ahead of Clinton nationally.

You lay out a false choice - just because folks don't vote for Obama in the primary means they won't vote for him in the general. But several polls have also disproved that theory.

But feel free to keep trying. Like the Clinton campaign, if you throw enough BS out there, eventually something might stick.

And Ola Dug, he did write the speech himself.

Posted by dcwolverine | March 25, 2008 2:45 PM

No way would he ever have won Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland if he hadn't been black.

He won the caucuses because he's liberal.

There were no black liberal presidential candidates in 2004, let alone one who's ever been a senator from Illinois, so your statement is ironclad!

Posted by Starscream | March 25, 2008 3:46 PM

When I played ball, I don't think my team would ever have paid much attention if the opposing team and its fans all demanded we quit and forfeit the game because they were ahead by 2% of the score in the early fourth quarter. I do believe we'd say, loudly, "HELL NO!"

How interesting that the pundits and bloggers who now are universally demanding Hillary quit before 7 million more voters can vote, were all opposed to her from the start! Quel coincidence!

Florida's voters chose her over the guy who ran a million bucks of TV ads for two solid weeks in the state, breaking his word that neither would campaign. They chose her by over 300,000 votes.
With or without "re-dos", that many Democrats said "we prefer Hillary."

Adding up all the votes so far, and assuming Clinton does well in the upcoming battles, it's entirely credible that she will end up with a LARGER POPULAR VOTE than Obama. It's already true that MORE DEMOCRATS have voted for her than for him; his margins in most states are from so-called Independents and "moderate Republicans". Democrats prefer Hillary, and have all along, and that's why she wins primaries when only Democratic registered voters are allowed to vote. How many independents will end up voting for an Obama candidacy over McCain? Nobody knows.

Finally, for months and months, all over the intenet and in public discussions, the Obmaa supporters have trashed Mrs. Clinton mercilessly, attacking her character and motives and hair style and hip measurements and "scandals" of years ago in which she was innocent. The hatred and vitriol against not just her but also anyone who stands up for her, is something I've never seen in Democratic politics before. So...how in heaven do they think her supporters will somehow fall in line, make obsequious bows to the Great Leader Of The Future, and support Obama? We've been insulted and slimed for a year now; it's so stupid of those who wish Obama success.

Hillary will prove that Democrats prefer her over him; the superdelegates will probably still be too cowardly to buck "conventional wisdom" and "MSM pressure", so they will support the lesser candidate. And we will all lose.

Posted by donald169 | March 25, 2008 4:13 PM

Ola Dug, the AntiChrist appears AFTER the Rapture. Get your apocalypses straight.

Posted by Deborah | March 25, 2008 4:23 PM

"And yet again what does North Carolina have? Lot's of African Americans. Surprise surprise!"

And yet again what does the Democratic Party need to win in November? Lot's of African Americans. Surprise surprise!

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 25, 2008 4:30 PM

Two questions for all the Hillary supporters here, and if they are answered in any coherent fashion, I'll start supporting her post haste.

1.) What, if any, steps did Hillary Clinton take to fight the DNC's ruling on Michigan and Florida before December 31st, 2007?

2.) Did Bill Clinton disenfranchise Democrats in 1996 by running as an unopposed incumbent? Did Al Gore disenfranchise Democrats in 2000 by virtue of not encouraging Bill Bradley to stay in after Super Tuesday?

The answers to these questions are critical, folks.

Posted by Starscream | March 25, 2008 4:35 PM

In Maryland and VA, Obama split whites with Hillary and won almost every age group.

First off, so what? He never would have gotten to those states without winning the southern states, which he did because he was black.

Moreover, Clinton won white Democrats in both states by 57 and 56 percent. Obama only made up the difference with white independents and Republicans, and (as you all keep telling me vis a vis Hillary), their motives are suspect.

Further, in polling, he runs even or ahead of Clinton nationally.

Not among whites, I don't think.

And remember, more of Clinton's supporters have said they'd vote for McCain than Obama's would.

Posted by Cal | March 25, 2008 5:26 PM

yes, Cal, iowa is a Southern state that is filled with Afircan Americans. Wait, you mean its not. you mean obama's candidacy isn't based on on winning black votes, but white votes. hmm, but that runs counter to everything you've said, thus once again, making your argument look ridiculous.

Second, I was unaware that white independents didn't count. i would think winning white independents would be a good thing in the general election, not a bad thing. But why quibble over over facts that completely undermine your point.

Also, Obama has raised more money than any politician in history, from a record number of contributors. Are all of them black too?

Once again, you're theory is glib and ridiculous, as you desperately grab aat straws.

Posted by dcwolverine | March 25, 2008 9:32 PM

Think about it…

IF you loved your political party and its people, would you fight hard to become President? (sure)

IF you loved your party and its people, would you rage an intense battle against the other contenders? (Of course)

IF you loved your party and its people and your political views were nearly a carbon copy of the other candidate from your very same party, would you continue to slander your peer even after your chances of winning the nomination are completely gone?

IF you really loved your party and its people, would you suggest that the other party's candidate is better suited for the job?

Come on, Democratic Party, press, and America. Is it not clear whom Hillary loves?

And, if we think she will “remember” us when she is in charge, who are we kidding?

Posted by Elizabeth | March 25, 2008 10:26 PM

How many people believe that Senator Obama would be where he is today if the Rev. Wright films had been played in December of 07 and Jan of 08? There is a trial going on in Chicago now which may shed even more light on the Senator's past and judgment. Here in Michigan, many voters could give a damn who the final nominee is given that we were disenfanchised and told our votes don't matter to the the Democratic Party as well as Senator Obama. Since John McCain won in the primary of 2000, largely owing to independants, don't be surprised when Michigan sees red in November. Let's see a democrat enter the white house without Michigan and Florida...

Posted by Michigan voter | March 26, 2008 12:55 AM

Of course, the media is at fault for Hillary remaining in the race. Does anyone seriously believe that if the situation were reversed -- Hillary with an insurmountable lead, Obama playing spoiler -- that the media would not have hounded me relentlessly? Why not Hillary? let's see if we can guess...

Posted by Miande | March 26, 2008 1:18 AM