Category: Politics (2007-2008)

Super-Sized Dismay with Clinton.

“‘She has unleashed the gates of hell,’ a longtime party leader told me. ‘She’s saying, “He’s not one of us.”‘” As even former Clinton supporters look aghast at yesterday’s transparent race-baiting, the supers begin to break in force for Sen. Obama. Adding to the two (Reps. Brad Miller of NC and Rick Larsen of WA) yesterday, Obama picks up Reps. Peter DeFazio of OR and Mazie Hirono of HI, DNC members Vernon Watkins (CA), Wilber Lee Jeffcoat (SC), John Gage (MD), Pilar Lujan (Guam), Ernest Espinoza (CA), and NM add-on Laurie Weahkee. In addition, Clinton’s one pick-up (Rep. Chris Carney of PA, following his district) is erased by the defection of Rep. Donald Payne of NJ.

Taken altogether, this means Sen. Obama has picked up +11 to Clinton’s +0 since the last update, putting him finally in the superdelegate lead. In addition, John Edwards, despite his recent claim of neutrality, now suggests he voted Obama, and even Clinton canary-in-the-coalmine Rahm Emanuel is now calling Obama “the presumptive nominee,” even if he says he’s not endorsing yet. In other words, the party is now backing Obama, and the Fat Lady is practicing her scales. (Clinton, of course, remains in denial.) Update: One more, Joe Johnson, DNC-VA.) Update 2: And a Saturday UAD, from Utah, Kristi Cumming. The next batch of UADs named (NY, OH) should lean Clinton, though.

Straw Man Economics.

“So you’ve managed to create AAA and BBB securities out of a pile of stinky, risky mortgage loans. Boss, you are a genius.” By way of Web Goddess, the Subprime mortgage fiasco, explained with profane stick figures.

Don’t Cry for Me, Archie Bunker.

You know, just when I thought Sen. Clinton realized she had been decisively beaten, and thus that it was time to beg off and let the healing begin, we get garbage like this: With West Virginia and Kentucky on the docket (and no more sizable African-American populations left on the calendar), Clinton toys dangerously with the race card yet again. “‘I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,’ she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article ‘that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.’” Uh, riiiight. Because, as we all know, black Americans aren’t hard-working at all, but rather “shiftless” and “indolent.” “There’s a pattern emerging here.” That there is, Sen. Clinton, and your campaign seems to be on the wrong side of it.

I get it — She was probably trying to make the same old point about her support among the white working class, and for whatever reason it came out disastrously wrong and inadvertently (I hope) conflated white and hard-working. But, even allowing for an unfortunate gaffe, this riff further illustrates the Clinton campaign’s troubling penchant for denigrating African-American votes as less important than those of white folk. Simply put, they’re not — a vote is a vote is a vote, and Obama has more of them, eggheads, African-Americans, you name it. Nor do I agree with the dubious contention that white working-class voters who have backed Clinton in the primary will go for McCain in the general en masse. As I said here, when it comes to primaries and generals, we’re talking apples and oranges. Past performance is no indicator of future success, or failure.

Tar Heel Pride. | Indiana Squeaker.

Just to do this properly, Sen. Obama wins North Carolina by 14 and comes within 2 in Indiana, effectively ending the race for the Democratic nomination. (Yes, it was already over, but now it’s really, really over.) When I got home late last night, Clinton had cancelled all of her public appearances, and it seemed reality had finally set in. But, no, word this morning is she will press on, and continue to burn money and goodwill for no apparent reason. Still, even if her campaign remains gracelessly in denial, I’d expect high-profile Clinton supporters will soon close the deal for her regardless. (Former Clinton backer George McGovern, for one, has now switched to Obama and is urging her concession.) So, the upshot is we’re done here, folks. It’s all over but the cryin’. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is our Democratic nominee.

Update: Sen. Obama picks up four more supers (one formerly a Clinton supporter, so it’s Obama +5 to Clinton’s +1), while Sen. Clinton’s Senate backers start looking for the exit. And May 20 is the new May 6.

Hoosiers and Tar Heels, represent.

If you live in North Carolina or Indiana, please consider voting for Barack Obama today. (And to the Tar Heels: my home state of South Carolina went for Obama by 28: If you can’t represent at least somewhat similarly — and right now the polls are saying single-digits — I consider the contest between us closed.)

The Edwardses Punt.

“Elizabeth Edwards likes Hillary Clinton’s plan for universal health insurance. Husband John Edwards doesn’t much care for Clinton’s ‘old politics.’ So goes the his-and-her debate in the Edwards household.” In a new interview with People magazine, John and Elizabeth Edwards announce they’re staying neutral. “Bottom line: the couple said they will not endorse either remaining candidate, saving their political capital for their own causes – his, fighting poverty; hers, fighting for universal health care.“

To which I feel compelled to ask: What political capital? Let me get this straight. On the one hand, we have Barack Obama, the “change” candidate who has had the nomination in the bag, mathematically speaking, for several months now. On the other, we have Hillary Clinton, the candidate whose campaign Edwards himself memorably deemed “the forces of status quo,” and who has left no GOP tactic untried to hack and slash a path to the nomination. And the Edwardses are neutral? That’s not statesmanship. That is political cowardice, pure and simple.

I mean, this isn’t a huge surprise: It’s been an open secret for awhile that the Edwardses would likely stay neutral, partly (if not mainly) on account of Elizabeth’s personal issues with the Obama candidacy. Still, I thought they’d eventually rise above their pique and get on board with the “change” they’d espoused for months and months on end. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve personally defended Edwards (usually from the children of doctors, who’ve been indoctrinated with the idea that malpractice lawsuits rank just below genocide on the list of Crimes Against Humanity, and thus that Edwards is merely some kind of rank profiteer living off their dear parents’ hard work.) I applauded his candidacy in 2008, and even voted for the guy in 2004. But, really, this is the kiss-off: If they still can’t manage to bring themselves off the fence at this late hour, I just can’t take either of them seriously anymore as leaders or progressives. “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Reality Bites.

“I’m not going to put my lot in with economists.” As TPM noted, we seem to have finally reached the point where there are “no more sharks left to jump.“ For alas, Sen. Clinton’s final, fraying tether to the reality-based community (and my general election vote, not that she’ll be getting that far anyway) gave up its last this weekend, as she — in defiance of her usual m.o. and very much in the manner of Dubya and the GOP — deemed universal opposition to her gas tax pander to be merely a figment of “elite opinion“. (She’s also doubled down on her anti-Obama gas tax ads.) As Robert Reich noted: “In case you’ve missed it, we now have a president who doesn’t care what most economists think. George W. Bush doesn’t even care what scientists think. He rejects all experts who disagree with his politics. This has led to some extraordinarily stupid policies.” (Clinton partisan Paul Krugman, also a member of the elite-economist cabal, has yet to weigh in on his being cast down as an enemy of the people.)

As it turns out, one of the salt-of-the earth proles at the event (self-identified as an Obama voter making less than $25,000 a year) called Clinton out to her face for this blatant idiocy: “‘I do feel pandered to when you talk about suspending the gas tax,’ the woman said, adding: ‘Call me crazy but I actually listen to economists because I think they know what they’ve studied.’” Clearly, this woman will be requiring significant reeducation. “‘How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.’ ‘Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.’” (Give Clinton credit: Her campaign has been a travesty, but it’s been great fodder for Orwell references around here.)

In any case, regarding the big picture: Unfortunately for earlier hopes that we’d be done May 6, it’s looking like tomorrow will almost assuredly bring a split, with NC for Obama and IN for Clinton. (That is, unless Zogby has finally broke out of its slump this cycle.) Meaning, of course, that Clinton will be even more mathematically eliminated. And yet, in all likelihood, we’ll slog on to June 3. Yay. (With that in mind, each side picked up another super today: Kalyn Free of OK for Obama and Theresa Morelli of Dems Abroad for Clinton. But as Morelli only counts for 1/2 a vote, that’s another 1/2-vote pick up for Obama.)

Update: make that two and a half: Obama picks up two more MD supers, Michael Cryor and Lauren Dugas-Glover. And it sounds like some of Clinton’s CA supers are reconsidering their options.

Update 2: Apparently, economists still mattered in 1992.

As Guam goes…

Thank you, Hagatna: Sen. Obama wins the Guam presidential caucuses by seven votes, 50.1%-49.9%. (This means a 2-2 delegate split, but also puts Obama two closer to the magic number of 2025.)

On the super side, Obama picks up Brian Colon of NM, Inez Tenenbaum of SC, and Parris Glendening of MD (the latter two are UADs.) Clinton, meanwhile, gets Jaime Gonzalez of TX and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend of MD (also a UAD). So the day’s super tally: Obama +3, Clinton +2. Adding ’em to the post-PA super count, that puts us at Obama 17, Clinton 11 (or Clinton down 23 from her needed 2-1 split.)

The Clinton “Blacklash.”

You know all the media hype we’ve been hearing of late about Obama’s presumed troubles with white voters? According to a study by NYT columnist Charles Blow, the numbers don’t bear it out. In fact, quite the converse: “The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much. On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period). While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways.” That it does. (See also Rural Votes.)