Picture a cozy weekend at Camp David for President Obama, Vice President Hillary Rodham Clinton and their lively spouses.
They'd talk policy and politics in the confines of the rustic retreat. After the long campaign and all the bruised feelings, Michelle Obama could finally reach out to Bill Clinton, as she recently said she's been wanting to do.
To be exact, she said: "I want to rip his eyes out."
Then added: "Kidding."
They could bring along Obama's national security adviser, let's say Samantha Power. She's the foreign policy specialist who had to leave the Obama campaign after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster."
Now that Clinton is angling to become Obama's running mate, the question arises how two frosty rivals and their seething camps might come together without sticking flag pins into each other.
It's all pretty awkward right now.
Clinton's aides and surrogates are boldly pitching her for the No. 2 spot even as many of them, like her, refuse to acknowledge she's failed in her quest for No. 1. Instead, she said she's open to being Obama's running mate.
For months, she's cast her rival as wet behind the ears and herself as the one to be trusted to deal with crises in the middle of the night.
In an Obama-Clinton White House, he'd take the 3 a.m. call. She might or might not be awakened.
For his part, Obama has painted Clinton as a figure of another time and himself as a clean break from all that's past and passe about Washington. He'd be eager to bring in his own team, to bring "change," the coin of his realm.
Then there's Bill, a man of deep experience, in-your-face opinions and more baggage than a boxcar.
Even so, some Democratic strategists are salivating at the prospect of Obama and Hillary Clinton joining forces.
They are fixated on her electoral strengths and not at all on Oval Office atmospherics or what might be done about her husband.
Obama's side is trying to tamp down the veep speculation that threatens to overshadow his historic achievement as the first black presidential nominee, but in a way that does not seem dismissive of her and does not rule out the chance of offering her the position.
They can't afford to dismiss her, or, more precisely, the more than 17 million voters who turned out for her, including masses of blue-collar voters in swing states, Hispanics and older voters, especially women.
Obama picked his words with exquisite care when he talked about Clinton with supporters, directly addressing his but really speaking to hers.
"You can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country - and we will win that fight - she will be central to that victory," he said.
Clinton, of course, has already fought that fight for another president, her husband, and lost. She's also assailed Obama's health care plan, which does not mandate universal coverage, as seriously deficient.
Obama purposely did not address in what capacity she might take another run at health care. It's unlikely he knows. He and Clinton have yet to talk in a serious way.
The Illinois senator is famously willing to meet with difficult people, even Iran's hard-line, terrorist-underwriting, nuclear-developing, anti-American president.
But a sit-down with Clinton isn't coming together too quickly, days after he proposed that it happen once the dust settled.
After he secured the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, he called her in the evening, missed her and left a message.
She got back to him.
Then they ran into each other backstage Wednesday between delivering speeches at a Washington conference. Obama said they'd have a conversation in "coming weeks."
It's an awkward time.
And then there's Bill.
Showing posts with label American Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Election. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH US SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL
SPIEGEL: Senator Hagel, your friend and Republican presidential candidate John McCain says that the United States Army has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq. Is he right?
Hagel: We have responsibilities, no doubt about it. We invaded Iraq, we are occupying Iraq and we have made Iraq dependent on us. By our actions we have done terrible damage to our own country and undermined our interests in the world.
SPIEGEL: What are the consequences?
Hagel: Our first moral obligation is to our own people whom we keep sending back to Iraq again and again. Four-thousand US soldiers have given their lives, over 30,000 have been wounded, many seriously. I just got an e-mail today from the father of a helicopter pilot. His son is going back to Iraq for the fifth time. That is not acceptable.
SPIEGEL: The question is: Should the US go or should it stay?
Hagel: We need to get out, but responsibly. Much depends on how we are going to engage Iran. That spills over into the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. It spills over into Lebanon. It spills over into the relationship with Syria. We need a regional strategy, and in my view that means a permanent Middle East conference in which all Middle East nations participate. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more difficult it becomes to implement such a process. Many of the Arab nations don’t trust us.
SPIEGEL: You would bring back diplomacy? That was certainly not one of the strengths of President George W. Bush.
Hagel: That was a fundamental error. In the end it will be a diplomatic solution that will bring the Iraq War to an end. General David Petraeus has also said that.
SPIEGEL: John McCain clearly places much more emphasis on the military than you do. Are there any further differences?
Hagel: We must engage Iran and reach a point where we can begin to negotiate. I do not see an alternative. What has American involvement accomplished so far? The Middle East is as combustible and as complicated as it has ever been. Our policy has been disastrous. We now must apply all the instruments of power -- diplomatic power is part of that, as is trade and economic development. Certainly the military is a part of that and so is intelligence sharing. We have to build relationships and define common interests. Only then is stability and security possible.
SPIEGEL: You are, then, an advocate of America relying more on soft power than on the military?
Hagel: That's the way we will make progress. We have to use our economic and also our cultural strength. Trust is the crucial currency in international relations. We willfully diminished the value of this currency and we now have to rebuild it. Trust is more important than anything else. North Korea was a part of the Axis of Evil, but now the United States is using the instruments of diplomacy in the Six Party talks.
SPIEGEL: But that would mean that you are closer to Democrat Barack Obama than to your own party as far as foreign policy is concerned?
Hagel: Well, that’s right, but I don’t develop my position on foreign policy based on which politicians I support or do not support. I was espousing this position on Iraq and Iran before Obama even got to the Senate.
SPIEGEL: You didn’t follow him, he followed you?
Hagel: (laughing) He has accepted my position and my direction.
SPIEGEL: That may be an important prerequisite should you want to become a member of his cabinet later on.
Hagel: I don’t expect to be in anyone’s cabinet. I think I will be on the outside of government.
SPIEGEL: Your name has been mentioned in connection with the offices of Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State in an Obama administration. You don't like such speculation?
Hagel: I appreciate people having confidence in me. But I don’t expect to be in any government.
SPIEGEL: What should the Europeans expect from the next American president?
Hagel: Both candidates will have a new approach, more cooperation, a greater emphasis on alliances. Whichever candidate is elected, our European allies will see a president forging a stronger relationship. It was a grave mistake to alienate the allies. Both candidates realize that the challenges today are global and we can only deal with these challenges working together with our allies.
SPIEGEL: And what does America expect from the Europeans? George W. Bush has been an easy president, because it was easy for Europeans not to follow him, for example in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hagel: A strong America is in the interest of the world. I often meet with foreign leaders and they know that the world is more dangerous when America is stumbling, bumbling and weak. America should lead, but through consensus and common interests.
SPIEGEL: Does the next president owe the Europeans an apology for America’s solo in Iraq and for belittling the West Europeans as “old Europe”?
Hagel: I do not think we should relive those times. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is disgraced and gone. Anybody who had anything to do with that is gone. There are books being written about them. Let’s go forward.
SPIEGEL: Do you also see a silver lining on the horizon when you look at the US economy? The United States has huge public debt and huge private debt. America consumes the most, but does not export enough. How can the United States restore its economic power?
Hagel: All the points you make are correct. We are the greatest debtor nation in the world. We have an enormous trade deficit. I look at it like a business -- you have a balance sheet: We are by far the largest economy in the world and the most flexible; we have ideas; the debt represents only a very small percentage of our gross domestic product. But you cannot continue to spend $600 billion a year that you do not have. We are spending $3 billion a week in Iraq alone. And we are going to have to do something about our steadily increasing costs for entitlement programs. The European nations have all had to deal with that.
SPIEGEL: What precisely do you want to change?
Hagel: We need to reform Social Security, reduce our costs for prescription drugs. I have submitted legislation in the Senate on every one of these issues.
SPIEGEL: Economically, America today is doubly dependent on China. China finances the enormous trade deficit and China supplies the country with a huge number of vital consumer goods. Is China a rival or a partner?
Hagel: It is the same question you can ask for America and Germany. Are we trade rivals? Yes. Are we partners? Yes. Are there tensions? Yes, there are.
SPIEGEL: You're comparing Germany to China?
Hagel: No. What I am trying to say is that every country has a multitude of dimensions. Foreign relations are always complex. I do not see China as a threat. It is a competitor who could turn out to be dangerous if the relationship is not managed right. If both sides are not attentive they could become, down the road, enemies.
SPIEGEL: It doesn’t look good for your own party. After seven years of George W. Bush, 81 percent of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track and only 27 percent have a favorable view. What went wrong?
Hagel: The party is in terrible shape and it is because we did not do a very good job of managing this country. We have gotten into two wars. We have run up a third of the national debt in the last seven years. So we have controlled the government and we have made a lot of mistakes. All the same, McCain and Obama are within the margin of error in the polls.
SPIEGEL: Is the era of the hawks in your party definitely over?
Hagel: I hope so. That segment of the Republican Party, the so-called neocons, held the Republican Party hostage much of the time. What this element has done to our party is clear now and I would hope that it will come back to the party of Eisenhower, even the party of Ronald Reagan. Today’s party is no longer Ronald Reagan’s party, who, contrary to his reputation, governed from the center. But he sat down with the Soviets, the great evil empire, and was able to get results, for example in nuclear disarmament.
SPIEGEL: You write in your new book about former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt visiting you in your office in the Senate, chain-smoking and complaining that “there are no more great leaders." Do you agree?
Hagel: Today, I don’t see any great global leaders of the stature of Reagan, Kohl, Mitterand and Thatcher. They were important, whether you agreed with them or not. But as Schmidt also told me in my office, there will come a time when we will find those new leaders again.
SPIEGEL: A lot of Germans hope Obama is that someone.
Hagel: He could be. But until he is in office, you don’t know.
Hagel: We have responsibilities, no doubt about it. We invaded Iraq, we are occupying Iraq and we have made Iraq dependent on us. By our actions we have done terrible damage to our own country and undermined our interests in the world.
SPIEGEL: What are the consequences?
Hagel: Our first moral obligation is to our own people whom we keep sending back to Iraq again and again. Four-thousand US soldiers have given their lives, over 30,000 have been wounded, many seriously. I just got an e-mail today from the father of a helicopter pilot. His son is going back to Iraq for the fifth time. That is not acceptable.
SPIEGEL: The question is: Should the US go or should it stay?
Hagel: We need to get out, but responsibly. Much depends on how we are going to engage Iran. That spills over into the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. It spills over into Lebanon. It spills over into the relationship with Syria. We need a regional strategy, and in my view that means a permanent Middle East conference in which all Middle East nations participate. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more difficult it becomes to implement such a process. Many of the Arab nations don’t trust us.
SPIEGEL: You would bring back diplomacy? That was certainly not one of the strengths of President George W. Bush.
Hagel: That was a fundamental error. In the end it will be a diplomatic solution that will bring the Iraq War to an end. General David Petraeus has also said that.
SPIEGEL: John McCain clearly places much more emphasis on the military than you do. Are there any further differences?
Hagel: We must engage Iran and reach a point where we can begin to negotiate. I do not see an alternative. What has American involvement accomplished so far? The Middle East is as combustible and as complicated as it has ever been. Our policy has been disastrous. We now must apply all the instruments of power -- diplomatic power is part of that, as is trade and economic development. Certainly the military is a part of that and so is intelligence sharing. We have to build relationships and define common interests. Only then is stability and security possible.
SPIEGEL: You are, then, an advocate of America relying more on soft power than on the military?
Hagel: That's the way we will make progress. We have to use our economic and also our cultural strength. Trust is the crucial currency in international relations. We willfully diminished the value of this currency and we now have to rebuild it. Trust is more important than anything else. North Korea was a part of the Axis of Evil, but now the United States is using the instruments of diplomacy in the Six Party talks.
SPIEGEL: But that would mean that you are closer to Democrat Barack Obama than to your own party as far as foreign policy is concerned?
Hagel: Well, that’s right, but I don’t develop my position on foreign policy based on which politicians I support or do not support. I was espousing this position on Iraq and Iran before Obama even got to the Senate.
SPIEGEL: You didn’t follow him, he followed you?
Hagel: (laughing) He has accepted my position and my direction.
SPIEGEL: That may be an important prerequisite should you want to become a member of his cabinet later on.
Hagel: I don’t expect to be in anyone’s cabinet. I think I will be on the outside of government.
SPIEGEL: Your name has been mentioned in connection with the offices of Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State in an Obama administration. You don't like such speculation?
Hagel: I appreciate people having confidence in me. But I don’t expect to be in any government.
SPIEGEL: What should the Europeans expect from the next American president?
Hagel: Both candidates will have a new approach, more cooperation, a greater emphasis on alliances. Whichever candidate is elected, our European allies will see a president forging a stronger relationship. It was a grave mistake to alienate the allies. Both candidates realize that the challenges today are global and we can only deal with these challenges working together with our allies.
SPIEGEL: And what does America expect from the Europeans? George W. Bush has been an easy president, because it was easy for Europeans not to follow him, for example in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hagel: A strong America is in the interest of the world. I often meet with foreign leaders and they know that the world is more dangerous when America is stumbling, bumbling and weak. America should lead, but through consensus and common interests.
SPIEGEL: Does the next president owe the Europeans an apology for America’s solo in Iraq and for belittling the West Europeans as “old Europe”?
Hagel: I do not think we should relive those times. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is disgraced and gone. Anybody who had anything to do with that is gone. There are books being written about them. Let’s go forward.
SPIEGEL: Do you also see a silver lining on the horizon when you look at the US economy? The United States has huge public debt and huge private debt. America consumes the most, but does not export enough. How can the United States restore its economic power?
Hagel: All the points you make are correct. We are the greatest debtor nation in the world. We have an enormous trade deficit. I look at it like a business -- you have a balance sheet: We are by far the largest economy in the world and the most flexible; we have ideas; the debt represents only a very small percentage of our gross domestic product. But you cannot continue to spend $600 billion a year that you do not have. We are spending $3 billion a week in Iraq alone. And we are going to have to do something about our steadily increasing costs for entitlement programs. The European nations have all had to deal with that.
SPIEGEL: What precisely do you want to change?
Hagel: We need to reform Social Security, reduce our costs for prescription drugs. I have submitted legislation in the Senate on every one of these issues.
SPIEGEL: Economically, America today is doubly dependent on China. China finances the enormous trade deficit and China supplies the country with a huge number of vital consumer goods. Is China a rival or a partner?
Hagel: It is the same question you can ask for America and Germany. Are we trade rivals? Yes. Are we partners? Yes. Are there tensions? Yes, there are.
SPIEGEL: You're comparing Germany to China?
Hagel: No. What I am trying to say is that every country has a multitude of dimensions. Foreign relations are always complex. I do not see China as a threat. It is a competitor who could turn out to be dangerous if the relationship is not managed right. If both sides are not attentive they could become, down the road, enemies.
SPIEGEL: It doesn’t look good for your own party. After seven years of George W. Bush, 81 percent of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track and only 27 percent have a favorable view. What went wrong?
Hagel: The party is in terrible shape and it is because we did not do a very good job of managing this country. We have gotten into two wars. We have run up a third of the national debt in the last seven years. So we have controlled the government and we have made a lot of mistakes. All the same, McCain and Obama are within the margin of error in the polls.
SPIEGEL: Is the era of the hawks in your party definitely over?
Hagel: I hope so. That segment of the Republican Party, the so-called neocons, held the Republican Party hostage much of the time. What this element has done to our party is clear now and I would hope that it will come back to the party of Eisenhower, even the party of Ronald Reagan. Today’s party is no longer Ronald Reagan’s party, who, contrary to his reputation, governed from the center. But he sat down with the Soviets, the great evil empire, and was able to get results, for example in nuclear disarmament.
SPIEGEL: You write in your new book about former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt visiting you in your office in the Senate, chain-smoking and complaining that “there are no more great leaders." Do you agree?
Hagel: Today, I don’t see any great global leaders of the stature of Reagan, Kohl, Mitterand and Thatcher. They were important, whether you agreed with them or not. But as Schmidt also told me in my office, there will come a time when we will find those new leaders again.
SPIEGEL: A lot of Germans hope Obama is that someone.
Hagel: He could be. But until he is in office, you don’t know.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Barack Obama news : Hillary Clinton is her own worst enemy
Context, as in "you've taken my words out of context," is the last refuge of a politician caught with foot in mouth. That's where Hillary Clinton is today, alternately explaining and apologizing. But with both feet in her mouth, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.Gravity is the toughest opponent of all, even for a Clinton hellbent on a comeback.
Of course the meaning of words can be distorted if they are lifted from their surroundings. The problem for Clinton is that her reference to the assassination to Robert F. Kennedy is just as outlandish when everything she said before and after is taken into account.
There is no question she was citing the RFK murder of 40 years ago in the spirit of "anything can happen" and thus as a reason she should stay in the race against Barack Obama.
Which means she was thinking of murder as a momentum changer. Not a pretty thought in any context.
But the full context works against Clinton for a larger reason, too. The assassination remark is the latest evidence that her increasingly erratic campaign suffers from a severe case of split personality disorder.
One day it's a focused machine, gobbling up votes in numbers big enough to stave off Obama's nomination triumph. The next day the same machine spews out gaffes and B.S. as though it's been sabotaged.
Dr. Jekyll, meet Mr. Hyde.
Consider the last three months. Fresh off big popular vote wins in Ohio and Texas in March, she shot herself in the foot with a tall tale about coming under sniper fire during her trip to Bosnia as First Lady. Only when she became the subject of ridicule, with a videotape showing her smiling and accepting flowers from a child in Bosnia, did she confess to being wrong.
In April, her top strategist, Mark Penn, was caught working both sides of a key issue in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary. Among Penn's private clients was the government of Colombia, which was pushing for approval of a free-trade agreement at the same time Clinton was denouncing the idea. When Clinton fired him, he was her second campaign honcho to get dumped.
May brought more of the same, even before the RFK reference. The day after disappointing results in Indiana and North Carolina, she trotted out the race card, saying "Senator Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again." She went on to landslide wins in West Virginia and Kentucky by tapping that very demographic.
The headline-grabbing blunders stopped her from scoring big gains against Obama, even though he was wounded by the Jeremiah Wright issue, his "bitter" comments about small-town values and growing concerns about his kumbaya foreign policy overtures. The delegate deficit is a hurdle for her, but she had a potent argument about his vulnerability in the general election.
Instead of cashing in, Clinton repeatedly stepped on her own story. And with finger-wagging Bubba piping up with frequent off-message zingers, the prospect of the restoration of the Clinton presidency has been a political wash at best.
She's now so toxic she's probably doomed any hope of being named Obama's running mate. He didn't want her to start with; now he won't have to take her.
This one matters most because the notion of Obama being assassinated has been much discussed. He is the first black candidate with a real chance to be President, and, not incidentally, received the endorsement of Ted and Caroline Kennedy, making him the symbolic heir to the Camelot legend that was twice felled by assassin bullets. She couldn't have picked a worse point.
Still, myths aside, Obama is looking weak. In addition to Clinton's pounding him in key states, President Bush and Republican nominee John McCain have taken turns using Obama as a piñata. His yes-we-can crusade has been reduced to explaining why he wants to meet personally with the leader of Iran, whose militias are killing American troops in Iraq and who pledges to wipe Israel off the map.
Obama's views on the Mideast are so muddled the appeasement label is starting to stick, but Clinton is in no position to benefit. That's the impact, full and final, of her mentioning murder in a political context.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
barack obama news: Voters just don't trust Hillary
Is Hillary Clinton the victim of a Vast Misogynist Conspiracy? Have her efforts to breach the ultimate glass ceiling in the world's labour market been destroyed - as in the end we're told all women's efforts inevitably are destroyed - by a lethal combination of sneering chauvinism and locker-room clubbiness?
To the cynics this US presidential election was always going to be a race to the bottom between racism and sexism. As the Democratic party continues to writhe through the final agonies of Senator Clinton's collapsing ambitions, her people think they know the real winner. They are muttering angrily that she is the most high-profile victim yet of sexual discrimination in the workplace. A favourite theme among them now is that Mrs Clinton is a kind of sacrificial figure: the woman who so obviously should have won the presidency but was denied by woman-hatred, the one whose efforts were not enough to conquer the legions of male bigots but whose sacrifice has made it possible for future women to scale the mountaintop. Henceforth, as it were, all generations shall call her blessed.
Before ascribing this sentiment to a particularly powerful case of sore loser syndrome, we ought to acknowledge that it surely has a little merit. There are things that are said all the time about Mrs Clinton's manner, her speaking style, assumptions that are made about her motivations, even the vocabulary in which she is described, that are, shall we say, certainly gender-specific. The cultural allusions played out with tired regularity to describe her campaigning style conjure the worst female images that lurk in the darkest corners of the male brain. She's Lady Macbeth and The White Queen and Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction rolled into one.
And yet, are we truly expected to believe this is why Democratic voters have rejected her? I've no doubt that there are still some men who physically recoil at the thought of a woman in a powerful job but do people really think that there were not other - good - reasons for denying Senator Clinton her prize?
In the end the beauty of the “We only lost because people are sexist/racist/homophobic/stupid” argument is that it can't really be rebutted. The only way to deal with it is to explain patiently and with great understanding that there were valid reasons why millions of intelligent, thoughtful and tolerant Americans decided to run a million miles from the idea that this woman - this woman - should become the most powerful person on the planet.
The principal reason voters give for not liking Senator Clinton is that they don't trust her, that they sense that someone who would do or say anything to get elected is not someone who should be entrusted with the presidency. If anything has been demonstrated in the two long years in which she has been actively campaigning for the presidency, it is how right they are.
As she ratchets up her final efforts to wrest the nomination from Barack Obama's grasp, she has finally cut herself free from the frayed moorings that connected her campaign with honesty and reality. This week, as Senator Obama moved closer to securing a majority of delegates needed for the Democratic nomination, she was insisting with more urgency than ever that the votes cast in Michigan and Florida must be counted.
These states, you'll recall, broke the Democratic Party's rules and went ahead with their primaries earlier than they were supposed to. As a result the Democratic Party - not the Republicans, or the Supreme Court or the Bush Administration - decided to disqualify those states from the process. In Michigan, Senator Obama was not even on the ballot papers, yet now Senator Clinton not only insists those votes must count towards the final vote totals, but says it would be a terrible denial of Americans' civil rights if they did not.
She compared her effort to overturn the decision not only to Al Gore's controversial defeat in Florida in a disputed recount in 2000, but to the victims of tyranny throughout history - from enslaved blacks in pre-Civil War America to the cheated voters in the election in March in Zimbabwe.
This is, truly, disturbing. It matters not whether it is a man or a woman saying it. It is not only hyperbolic and cynical. It is inflammatory nonsense. But it is at least of a piece with her increasingly desperate struggle.
Mrs Clinton has received much credit for the fighting posture she has adopted of late. She has found her voice, it is said, as she fights to win votes in the remaining primary states among predominantly low-income, white voters. Yet what is this voice? It is a voice that explicitly appeals to white working-class solidarity and implicitly suggests that people outside that demographic cannot be president. It plays on the worst populist instincts of Americans, issuing threats to obliterate Iran and attacking the Chinese for poisoning Americans with toxic toys.
To see how completely Senator Clinton has changed in the course of her campaign, we have only to consider how the Democratic race was viewed two years ago as it got under way. Back then, when Mr Obama's campaign was merely a twinkle in his own eye, the question on Democrats' lips was: who could possibly beat Hillary? The assumption was that Senator Clinton would be the candidate of the elite, liberal, progressive types and African-Americans who in the end, as it turned out, flocked to Mr Obama.
Her problem, it was assumed back then, was that she would not be able to appeal to the white working class with its more conservative instincts and values. And so the discussion about potential rivals revolved around candidates who might appeal to those voters - Mark Warner, the former Governor of Virginia, John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina. Instead, Senator Obama became her main rival and outflanked her on the Left and outranked her among the progressives. So with barely a change of step, she pivoted and turned herself into the candidate of the hardworking ordinary Americans.
Now, there is much talk that if Mrs Clinton cannot be president she must be Mr Obama's vice-presidential nominee. But in her most recent speeches and actions she has surely demonstrated how dangerously unfit she would be. It would not be sexism or chauvinism but the clear-headed decision of a wise statesman, if Senator Obama brought this particular woman's presidential hopes to an unmourned end.
To the cynics this US presidential election was always going to be a race to the bottom between racism and sexism. As the Democratic party continues to writhe through the final agonies of Senator Clinton's collapsing ambitions, her people think they know the real winner. They are muttering angrily that she is the most high-profile victim yet of sexual discrimination in the workplace. A favourite theme among them now is that Mrs Clinton is a kind of sacrificial figure: the woman who so obviously should have won the presidency but was denied by woman-hatred, the one whose efforts were not enough to conquer the legions of male bigots but whose sacrifice has made it possible for future women to scale the mountaintop. Henceforth, as it were, all generations shall call her blessed.
Before ascribing this sentiment to a particularly powerful case of sore loser syndrome, we ought to acknowledge that it surely has a little merit. There are things that are said all the time about Mrs Clinton's manner, her speaking style, assumptions that are made about her motivations, even the vocabulary in which she is described, that are, shall we say, certainly gender-specific. The cultural allusions played out with tired regularity to describe her campaigning style conjure the worst female images that lurk in the darkest corners of the male brain. She's Lady Macbeth and The White Queen and Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction rolled into one.
And yet, are we truly expected to believe this is why Democratic voters have rejected her? I've no doubt that there are still some men who physically recoil at the thought of a woman in a powerful job but do people really think that there were not other - good - reasons for denying Senator Clinton her prize?
In the end the beauty of the “We only lost because people are sexist/racist/homophobic/stupid” argument is that it can't really be rebutted. The only way to deal with it is to explain patiently and with great understanding that there were valid reasons why millions of intelligent, thoughtful and tolerant Americans decided to run a million miles from the idea that this woman - this woman - should become the most powerful person on the planet.
The principal reason voters give for not liking Senator Clinton is that they don't trust her, that they sense that someone who would do or say anything to get elected is not someone who should be entrusted with the presidency. If anything has been demonstrated in the two long years in which she has been actively campaigning for the presidency, it is how right they are.
As she ratchets up her final efforts to wrest the nomination from Barack Obama's grasp, she has finally cut herself free from the frayed moorings that connected her campaign with honesty and reality. This week, as Senator Obama moved closer to securing a majority of delegates needed for the Democratic nomination, she was insisting with more urgency than ever that the votes cast in Michigan and Florida must be counted.
These states, you'll recall, broke the Democratic Party's rules and went ahead with their primaries earlier than they were supposed to. As a result the Democratic Party - not the Republicans, or the Supreme Court or the Bush Administration - decided to disqualify those states from the process. In Michigan, Senator Obama was not even on the ballot papers, yet now Senator Clinton not only insists those votes must count towards the final vote totals, but says it would be a terrible denial of Americans' civil rights if they did not.
She compared her effort to overturn the decision not only to Al Gore's controversial defeat in Florida in a disputed recount in 2000, but to the victims of tyranny throughout history - from enslaved blacks in pre-Civil War America to the cheated voters in the election in March in Zimbabwe.
This is, truly, disturbing. It matters not whether it is a man or a woman saying it. It is not only hyperbolic and cynical. It is inflammatory nonsense. But it is at least of a piece with her increasingly desperate struggle.
Mrs Clinton has received much credit for the fighting posture she has adopted of late. She has found her voice, it is said, as she fights to win votes in the remaining primary states among predominantly low-income, white voters. Yet what is this voice? It is a voice that explicitly appeals to white working-class solidarity and implicitly suggests that people outside that demographic cannot be president. It plays on the worst populist instincts of Americans, issuing threats to obliterate Iran and attacking the Chinese for poisoning Americans with toxic toys.
To see how completely Senator Clinton has changed in the course of her campaign, we have only to consider how the Democratic race was viewed two years ago as it got under way. Back then, when Mr Obama's campaign was merely a twinkle in his own eye, the question on Democrats' lips was: who could possibly beat Hillary? The assumption was that Senator Clinton would be the candidate of the elite, liberal, progressive types and African-Americans who in the end, as it turned out, flocked to Mr Obama.
Her problem, it was assumed back then, was that she would not be able to appeal to the white working class with its more conservative instincts and values. And so the discussion about potential rivals revolved around candidates who might appeal to those voters - Mark Warner, the former Governor of Virginia, John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina. Instead, Senator Obama became her main rival and outflanked her on the Left and outranked her among the progressives. So with barely a change of step, she pivoted and turned herself into the candidate of the hardworking ordinary Americans.
Now, there is much talk that if Mrs Clinton cannot be president she must be Mr Obama's vice-presidential nominee. But in her most recent speeches and actions she has surely demonstrated how dangerously unfit she would be. It would not be sexism or chauvinism but the clear-headed decision of a wise statesman, if Senator Obama brought this particular woman's presidential hopes to an unmourned end.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Obama rops in 8 Edwards delegates
At least six of John Edwards' pledged delegates in South Carolina will throw their support to Barack Obama following Edwards’ endorsement of the Democratic frontrunner, bringing the total number of delegates switching to Obama on Thursday to eight.
One Edwards delegate from Iowa, Machelle Crum, came out for Obama on Thursday morning, as did New Hampshire delegate Joshua Denton. Crum made the decision after receiving a phone call from Edwards supporters encouraging her to make the switch.
In South Carolina, Daniel Boan, Christine Brennan-Bond, Robert Groce, Susan Smith, Mike Evatt and Lauren Bilton — all elected as pledged delegates for Edwards following his third place finish in the primary there on January 29 — announced Thursday they will follow Edwards’ lead and pledge their support to Obama at the Democratic National Convention in August.
John Moylan, the Columbia attorney who directed Edwards’ campaign in the state and is now serving as an alternate delegate for Edwards, appeared on CNN’s “American Morning” Thursday. He stated his support for Obama and hinted that more members of the Edwards delegation would follow later in the day.
“I didn't reach all eight of them, but I can tell you that at least six of the eight are prepared to endorse Senator Obama,” Moylan said this morning.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Edwards slaps Hillary over racial comments
Former Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday that Hillary Rodham Clinton probably didn't choose her words carefully when she suggested Barack Obama was losing the white vote.
Edwards also hedged on whether he might still endorse one of his former rivals, but said he thinks Obama will be the nominee. He cautioned that in Clinton's continued push for the nomination, she "has to be really careful" not to damage the Democratic Party's prospects in November.
"I know how hard it is to get up and go out there every day, speak to the media, speak to crowds, when people are urging you to get out of the race. I mean, it's a very hard place to be in. But she's shown a lot of strength about that," said Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who dropped out of the race in January.
"But I think the one thing that she has to be careful about ... going forward, is that, if she makes the case for herself, which she's completely entitled to do, she has to be really careful that she's not damaging our prospects, the Democratic Party, and our cause, for the fall," he said in a taped interview broadcast on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Clinton pledged to stay in the race after losing to Obama by a wide margin in North Carolina and barely winning in Indiana, which cemented his status as the front-runner. She touts her overall electability in a general election and, pointing to demographics, she recently told USA Today in an interview:
"There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working — hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
Some accused Clinton of reintroducing race into the campaign. Edwards seemed to give her a pass.
"She's in a very tough, very competitive race that's been going on a long, long time. And you know, she didn't probably — I'm sure she feels like she didn't choose her words very well there," he said.
"What I think is, at the end of the day, when this is over — and I think it is likely, certainly, at this point, that Senator Obama will be the nominee — that the Democrats will unite. We'll all be behind our nominee. And we'll be out there campaigning our hearts out," Edwards said.
David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist, disputed Clinton's assertion.
Axelrod said Obama and Clinton split Indiana voters who make $50,000 a year or less, and that Obama performed better among non-college-educated voters there. He said the same was true in North Carolina.
"The words weren't well chosen, but the thesis was wrong," Axeldrod said on "Fox News Sunday.
Meanwhile, on the subject of an endorsement, Edwards said he "might" still, but "I don't think it's a big deal, to be honest with you."
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Hillary's five big mistakes or how Obama outplayed her.
For all her talk about "full speed on to the White House," there was an unmistakably elegiac tone to Hillary Clinton's primary-night speech in Indianapolis. And if one needed further confirmation that the undaunted, never-say-die Clintons realize their bid might be at an end, all it took was a look at the wistful faces of the husband and the daughter who stood behind the candidate as she talked of all the people she has met in a journey "that has been a blessing for me."
It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others:
It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others:
1. She misjudged the mood
That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent's strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability — and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics. It made sense, given who she is and the additional doubts that some voters might have about making a woman Commander in Chief. But in putting her focus on positioning herself to win the general election in November, Clinton completely misread the mood of Democratic-primary voters, who were desperate to turn the page. "Being the consummate Washington insider is not where you want to be in a year when people want change," says Barack Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. Clinton's "initial strategic positioning was wrong and kind of played into our hands." But other miscalculations made it worse:
2. She didn't master the rules
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign now acknowledges privately:
3. She underestimated the caucus states
While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters — women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs — were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says Axelrod, "they — bewilderingly — seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become."
By the time Clinton's lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it — in part because:
4. She relied on old money
For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Her 2006 Senate campaign had raised an astonishing $51.6 million against token opposition, in what everyone assumed was merely a dry run for a far bigger contest. But something had happened to fund raising that Team Clinton didn't fully grasp: the Internet. Though Clinton's totals from working the shrimp-cocktail circuit remained impressive by every historic measure, her donors were typically big-check writers. And once they had ponied up the $2,300 allowed by law, they were forbidden to give more. The once bottomless Clinton well was drying up.
Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.) Meanwhile, the Clintons were forced to tap the $100 million — plus the fortune they had acquired since he left the White House — first for $5 million in January to make it to Super Tuesday and then $6.4 million to get her through Indiana and North Carolina. And that reflects one final mistake:
5. She never counted on a long haul
Clinton's strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over. Clinton spent lavishly there yet finished a disappointing third. What surprised the Obama forces was how long it took her campaign to retool. She fought him to a tie in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests but didn't have any troops in place for the states that followed. Obama, on the other hand, was a train running hard on two or three tracks. Whatever the Chicago headquarters was unveiling to win immediate contests, it always had a separate operation setting up organizations in the states that were next. As far back as Feb. 21, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was spotted in Raleigh, N.C. He told the News & Observer that the state's primary, then more than 10 weeks away, "could end up being very important in the nomination fight." At the time, the idea seemed laughable.
Now, of course, the question seems not whether Clinton will exit the race but when. She continues to load her schedule with campaign stops, even as calls for her to concede grow louder. But the voice she is listening to now is the one inside her head, explains a longtime aide. Clinton's calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best. And then? As she said in Indianapolis, "No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner.
Clinton may be the possible running mate of Barack Obama
Barack Obama on Thursday did not rule out selecting rival Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate if he ultimately defeats her in a race in which he has an almost insurmountable lead.
"There's no doubt that she's qualified to be vice president, there's no doubt she's qualified to be president," Obama told NBC News.
In a CNN interview, he said he had not wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination, but when he does, he will start going through the process of selecting a running mate.
"She is tireless, she is smart. She is capable. And so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," said Obama, who inched closer to winning the nomination by routing Clinton in North Carolina and almost defeating her in Indiana on Tuesday.
Some Democrats are saying Obama and Clinton would be a formidable team against Republican John McCain in the race to the November election.
According to a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week, a majority of both Obama and Clinton voters say they would favor a so-called "Dream Ticket" involving both candidates.
The Clinton campaign has deflected such talk. Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters on Wednesday that it was premature to discuss such a ticket and he had not heard her express any interest in the vice presidency.
"There's no doubt that she's qualified to be vice president, there's no doubt she's qualified to be president," Obama told NBC News.
In a CNN interview, he said he had not wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination, but when he does, he will start going through the process of selecting a running mate.
"She is tireless, she is smart. She is capable. And so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," said Obama, who inched closer to winning the nomination by routing Clinton in North Carolina and almost defeating her in Indiana on Tuesday.
Some Democrats are saying Obama and Clinton would be a formidable team against Republican John McCain in the race to the November election.
According to a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week, a majority of both Obama and Clinton voters say they would favor a so-called "Dream Ticket" involving both candidates.
The Clinton campaign has deflected such talk. Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters on Wednesday that it was premature to discuss such a ticket and he had not heard her express any interest in the vice presidency.
Hillary Clinton eyes 2012 ticket by degrading Obama
Why Hillary contnues to fight?? It is because she's eyeing the 2012 ticket by the destruction of Obama in this election.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.
Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?
Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can’t win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?
Hillary is obviously entitled to keep running until Obama has secured the votes necessary for the nomination, and it is certainly understandable that she would want to run until the last popular vote is counted. But must she run a negative, slash-and-burn campaign? Must she use her time on the platform and on television to belittle, mock, deride and try to destroy the man who will eventually be the candidate of her own party?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) felt similarly justified in staying in the race for the Republican nomination until Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reached the majority threshold required for nomination. He contested the Texas primary vigorously, even though his earlier losses in South Carolina and Florida made it most unlikely that he could win the nomination. But he chose to run a positive campaign. He didn’t knock McCain. He just articulated the case for his own candidacy.
But Hillary won’t avail herself of that option because it does not serve her long-term fallback position: a shot at the nomination in 2012. If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. Not since FDR and Truman has a party lasted that long in power. When the Republicans tried to do so, in 1980 and 1992, they fell flat on their face.
Hillary is using white, blue-collar fears of Barack Obama to try to stop him from getting nominated or elected.
She is playing on his “elitism” by hammering him on blue-collar issues and is mincing no words in painting him as a stranger to blue-collar white America.
Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can’t stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama’s ability to get elected.
This is not a byproduct of her continued candidacy — it is the goal. She, the consummate realist, must know that she has no practical shot at the nomination herself after her numbing loss in North Carolina and her paper-thin margin in Indiana. But she welcomes the opportunity an ongoing candidacy offers to bash Obama and to drive a wedge between him and the voters he must have to beat McCain.
The question is how long Democratic primary voters and the party leadership let her go on hitting their ultimate nominee. Will they bring Hillary up short and speak out about the harm she is doing to their party’s prospects by way of her refusal to recognize reality?
Hillary doesn’t have to pull out. She is entitled to run in the remaining states. But she should curtail her negative campaign and adopt the Huckabee strategy: Maximize your own vote share, but don’t beat up the party’s nominee. Unless, of course, that is her goal all along.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.
Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?
Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can’t win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?
Hillary is obviously entitled to keep running until Obama has secured the votes necessary for the nomination, and it is certainly understandable that she would want to run until the last popular vote is counted. But must she run a negative, slash-and-burn campaign? Must she use her time on the platform and on television to belittle, mock, deride and try to destroy the man who will eventually be the candidate of her own party?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) felt similarly justified in staying in the race for the Republican nomination until Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reached the majority threshold required for nomination. He contested the Texas primary vigorously, even though his earlier losses in South Carolina and Florida made it most unlikely that he could win the nomination. But he chose to run a positive campaign. He didn’t knock McCain. He just articulated the case for his own candidacy.
But Hillary won’t avail herself of that option because it does not serve her long-term fallback position: a shot at the nomination in 2012. If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. Not since FDR and Truman has a party lasted that long in power. When the Republicans tried to do so, in 1980 and 1992, they fell flat on their face.
Hillary is using white, blue-collar fears of Barack Obama to try to stop him from getting nominated or elected.
She is playing on his “elitism” by hammering him on blue-collar issues and is mincing no words in painting him as a stranger to blue-collar white America.
Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can’t stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama’s ability to get elected.
This is not a byproduct of her continued candidacy — it is the goal. She, the consummate realist, must know that she has no practical shot at the nomination herself after her numbing loss in North Carolina and her paper-thin margin in Indiana. But she welcomes the opportunity an ongoing candidacy offers to bash Obama and to drive a wedge between him and the voters he must have to beat McCain.
The question is how long Democratic primary voters and the party leadership let her go on hitting their ultimate nominee. Will they bring Hillary up short and speak out about the harm she is doing to their party’s prospects by way of her refusal to recognize reality?
Hillary doesn’t have to pull out. She is entitled to run in the remaining states. But she should curtail her negative campaign and adopt the Huckabee strategy: Maximize your own vote share, but don’t beat up the party’s nominee. Unless, of course, that is her goal all along.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Obama wins North Carolina, Clinton takes Indiana
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton split crucial presidential contests in Indiana and North Carolina on Tuesday, pushing Obama closer to securing the Democratic nomination but keeping Clinton's faint hopes alive.
CBS News projected Clinton's win in Indiana, which preserved her slender chances in a prolonged Democratic duel that now moves to the next contest in one week in West Virginia. Other networks had not made a projection with more than two-thirds of the vote counted and Clinton leading 53 percent to 47 percent.
"I want to start by congratulating Senator Clinton on what appears to be a victory in the great state of Indiana," Obama told supporters in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Obama swamped Clinton in North Carolina, righting his campaign after a rough patch fueled by his comments on "bitter" small-town residents and a controversy over racially charged comments by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Indiana and North Carolina, with a combined 187 delegates to the Democrats' August nominating convention at stake, were the biggest prizes left in the Democratic race. Only six contests remain.
The two Democrats have battled for months for the right to represent the party in November's presidential election against Republican John McCain.
Obama, a 46-year-old Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president, has an almost unassailable lead in pledged delegates who will help select the Democratic nominee.
His win in North Carolina will move him closer to the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination and reduce the chance Clinton will be able to overtake his lead in either pledged delegates or popular votes won in the state-by-state nominating battle.
CBS News projected Clinton's win in Indiana, which preserved her slender chances in a prolonged Democratic duel that now moves to the next contest in one week in West Virginia. Other networks had not made a projection with more than two-thirds of the vote counted and Clinton leading 53 percent to 47 percent.
"I want to start by congratulating Senator Clinton on what appears to be a victory in the great state of Indiana," Obama told supporters in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Obama swamped Clinton in North Carolina, righting his campaign after a rough patch fueled by his comments on "bitter" small-town residents and a controversy over racially charged comments by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Indiana and North Carolina, with a combined 187 delegates to the Democrats' August nominating convention at stake, were the biggest prizes left in the Democratic race. Only six contests remain.
The two Democrats have battled for months for the right to represent the party in November's presidential election against Republican John McCain.
Obama, a 46-year-old Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president, has an almost unassailable lead in pledged delegates who will help select the Democratic nominee.
His win in North Carolina will move him closer to the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination and reduce the chance Clinton will be able to overtake his lead in either pledged delegates or popular votes won in the state-by-state nominating battle.
Obama takes North Carolina - Big win for Barack Obama in North Carolina
Sen. Barack Obama will win the North Carolina Democratic primary, CNN projects, but it is too early to call Indiana because not enough results are in from key areas.
As North Carolina results came in, Obama was leading Sen. Hillary Clinton by a margin of roughly 57-41.
The win will give him the larger share of the state's 115 delegates.
"Some were saying that North Carolina would be a game-changer in this election. But today, what North Carolina decided is that the only game that needs changing is the one in Washington," Obama told supporters in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Obama congratulated Clinton on what he called her apparent victory in Indiana.
Obama took an overwhelming 91 percent of the black vote in North Carolina, according to exit polls, while Clinton claimed only 6 percent.
Clinton took 59 percent of the white vote compared to 36 percent for Obama, according to the polls.
With 73 percent of Indiana precincts reporting, Clinton was leading Obama, 52-48 percent.
There are 72 delegates at stake in Indiana.
Poll workers in Indiana and North Carolina reported heavy turnout in the two primaries.
Turnout in the North Carolina Democratic primary was expected to reach 50 percent, according to Gary Bartlett, executive director for the North Carolina Board of Elections.
That figure would far exceed the 15 percent to 30 percent that usually turn out for a primary, he said.
The Indiana secretary of state's office said turnout was high throughout the day.
Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita will not release official figures until the end of the day, but said turnout looked more like a general election than a primary.
A judge ordered some polling stations in Indiana to stay open past closing time because the lines were so long.
Polling officials in Indianapolis said they had set a record for voter turnout after being open for only six hours.A third of Clinton voters said they would pick McCain over Obama, while 17 percent said they would not vote at all. Forty-eight percent of Clinton supporters said they would back Obama in November.
Obama got even less support from Clinton backers in North Carolina where 45 percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for him over McCain. Thirty-eight percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain while 12 percent said they would not vote.
Obama voters appear to be more willing to support Clinton in November. In Indiana, 59 percent of Obama backers said they'd vote for Clinton, and 70 percent of Obama backers in North Carolina said vote for her against McCain.
Obama on Tuesday said he didn't agree with those who said his party would not be able to unite.
"Tonight, many of the pundits have suggested that this party is inalterably divided -- that Sen. Clinton's supporters will not support me, and that my supporters will not support her," he said.
"I'm here tonight to tell you that I don't believe it. Yes, there have been bruised feelings on both sides. Yes, each side desperately wants their candidate to win. But ultimately, this race is not about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain.
"This election is about you -- the American people -- and whether we will have a president and a party that can lead us toward a brighter future."
Voters from both states were spilt over the controversy surrounding Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, early exit polls suggest.
In Indiana, 49 percent of voters in the Democratic primary said the issue was not important, compared to 48 percent who said it was an important factor in their vote.
In North Carolina 50 percent of voters said the Wright controversy was important, and 48 percent said it was not.
In both states, those who said it was an important issue largely broke for Clinton, and those who said it was not backed Obama.
Obama currently leads in pledged delegates and in states won, and he is ahead in the popular vote, if Florida and Michigan are not factored into the equation. Those states are being penalized for moving their primaries up in violation of party rules.
In all, only 404 pledged delegates remain to be chosen, and Tuesday's total of 187 makes it the biggest single primary day left. Clinton would need to win 70 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to catch up with Obama.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Top 10 "Surprising Facts About Barack Obama,"
Barack Obama will appear on the Late Show with David Letterman Thursday night to deliver the Top 10 "Surprising Facts About Barack Obama," including his interest in singer Paula Abdul.
From the home office in Wahoo, Nebraska:
10. My first act as President will be to stop the fighting between Lauren and Heidi on “The Hills.”
9. In the Illinois primary, I accidentally voted for Kucinich.
8. When I tell my kids to clean their room, I finish with, “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.”
7. Throughout high school, I was consistently voted “Barackiest.”
6. Earlier today I bowled a 39.
5. I have cancelled all my appearances the day the “Sex and the City” movie opens.
4. It’s the birthplace of Fred Astaire. (Sorry, that’s a surprising fact about Omaha)
3. We are tirelessly working to get the endorsement of Kentucky Derby favorite Colonel John.
2. This has nothing to do with the Top Ten, but what the heck is up with Paula Abdul?
1. I have not slept since October.
From the home office in Wahoo, Nebraska:
10. My first act as President will be to stop the fighting between Lauren and Heidi on “The Hills.”
9. In the Illinois primary, I accidentally voted for Kucinich.
8. When I tell my kids to clean their room, I finish with, “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.”
7. Throughout high school, I was consistently voted “Barackiest.”
6. Earlier today I bowled a 39.
5. I have cancelled all my appearances the day the “Sex and the City” movie opens.
4. It’s the birthplace of Fred Astaire. (Sorry, that’s a surprising fact about Omaha)
3. We are tirelessly working to get the endorsement of Kentucky Derby favorite Colonel John.
2. This has nothing to do with the Top Ten, but what the heck is up with Paula Abdul?
1. I have not slept since October.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Obama news: Obama avoids media in final days of PA
It's now been ten days since Democrat Barack Obama has made himself available for questions from his traveling press corps, and it appears as though that number could rise even higher.
Aides have said it's unlikely he’ll hold an availability with reporters before Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, but that they "could always add one." Given their track record over the past few days, however, that doesn't sound promising.
Since the start of the weekend, the possibility of a press conference has been dangled in front of reporters twice—only to be snatched away at the last possible moment.
On Saturday, reporters were teased for the majority of the day with a possible evening avail, only to be told at the eleventh hour that it would not be happening. To make it up, staffers said they were aiming to put him in front of cameras on Sunday but that, too, did not happen.
And at a diner Thursday morning, a reporter slipped in a question about former President Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas, but Obama responded by saying he just wanted to eat his waffle. Later that afternoon while taping an interview for "The Daily Show," a reporter tried to ask Obama about a new Clinton ad and the Obama ad that came as a response. The White House hopeful asked the reporter if she was "supposed to be" asking a question at that time and added that he might answer but that "it depends on how well behaved you are." In the end, he did not take the question.
Traveling press secretary Jen Psaki declined to comment on exactly why no time has been allotted for traveling press questions since a press conference in Indianapolis April 11. Obama did, however, make time Thursday for a few one on one interviews.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Obama news : New campaign crowd high for Obama
Barack Obama was greeted by the largest crowd of his campaign Friday night in Philadelphia. Some 35,000 people jammed into Independence Park to see the Democratic presidential candidate, four days before this state's crucial April 22 primary.
Frank Friel, director of security at the Independence Visitor Center, made the official estimate.
The crowd exceed the 30,000 who greeted Obama and Oprah Winfrey in December in Columbia, S.C.
Obama told the crowd the United States is at a crucial moment in its history, much like what the founding fathers faced in Philadelphia.
"It was over 200 years ago that a group of patriots gathered in this city to do something that no one in the world believed they could do," Obama said. "After years of a government that didn't listen to them, or speak for them, or represent their hopes and their dreams, a few humble colonists came to Philadelphia to declare their independence from the tyranny of the British throne."
The Illinois senator called Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a "tenacious" opponent but said it was time to move beyond the politics of the 1990s.
"Her message comes down to this: We can't really change the say-anything, do-anything, special interest-driven game in Washington, so we might as well choose a candidate who really knows how to play it," Obama said.
Obama news : Obama dominates Pennsylvania airwaves in home stretch
Barack Obama has spent more than $8 million on Pennsylvania campaign spots over the past month – more than twice what Hillary Clinton has – as ad spending this year continues its record pace.
The Illinois senator’s presidential campaign had spent $8.1 million in the four-week period ending April 16, half of that in the critical – and pricey – Philadelphia ad market, according to an analysis conducted by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, CNN’s consultant on political advertising spending.
He is spending $400,000 a day, on a pace to exceed $10 million in ad spending – more than double Clinton’s $3.3 million in ad buys.
“Senator Obama’s campaign has done an excellent job of putting their fundraising advantage to work with record Pennsylvania ad buys, forcing Senator Clinton to spend valuable time and money in a state where she had a double-digit lead in the polls only a few weeks ago,” said Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of TNSMI/CMAG.
“If her own message connects with voters and pays off, it could be a big moral boost for the Clinton campaign. If not: the Obama strategy has paid off.”
Obama is also dominating the airwaves in upcoming primary states, spending $1.4 million in North Carolina and $1.8 million in Indiana, and has ads on the air in Oregon, according to the analysis. Clinton has made smaller buys in North Carolina and Indiana, and has not yet begun airing ads in Oregon.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Obama news: Poll shows Obama gaining, holding steady in key states
Despite a weekend of negative coverage following his controversial remarks about some small town Americans, Barack Obama appears to be holding steady or making gains in the next three primary states, according to a just released poll.
Most surprisingly, the new LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton by 5 points in Indiana (40 to 35 percent), a state with demographics that favor the New York senator and one where other recent polls have shown her with a lead.
The poll also shows Clinton only holds a 5 point lead in Pennsylvania (48 to 43 percent). That margin is among the slimmest measured between to the two candidates and is significantly less than the double digit lead Clinton held there two weeks ago.
In North Carolina, the new survey shows Obama with a 13 point lead (47-34 percent), a margin that is consistent with other recent polls in that state.
Pennsylvania votes April 22 while Indiana and North Carolina vote two weeks later on May 6. Should Clinton win in Pennsylvania, some political observers have said she must score a victory in at least one of the May 6 states to make a compelling argument to continue her presidential campaign.
The poll was conducted over five days (April 10-14), the majority of which came after Obama's now famous "bitter" comments first surfaced.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Obama news: Polls: Clinton's lead down to 4 points in Pennsylvania
Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead over Sen. Barack Obama in the crucial primary state of Pennsylvania has dwindled to 4 points, a CNN average of recent polls calculated Thursday shows.
The New York senator now holds a 4 point advantage over her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, 46 to 42 percent. Twelve percent of likely Democratic voters there remain unsure.
Recent CNN "poll of polls" suggest the race in Pennsylvania is tightening before the state's April 22 primary. A poll of polls calculated two days ago showed Clinton with a 6 point lead in Pennsylvania, and a poll of polls last Friday showed her on top by 11 points.
“Obama is outspending Clinton by better than two to one on television ads in Pennsylvania,” said Alan Silverleib, CNN’s senior political researcher. “Combine that with Clinton’s recent misstatement over her 1996 trip to Bosnia and the escalating chorus of voices calling on her to withdraw from the race, and you get a much tighter contest.”
Thursday's poll of polls included recent surveys from Time Magazine, American Research Group, and Quinnipiac University.
The New York senator now holds a 4 point advantage over her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, 46 to 42 percent. Twelve percent of likely Democratic voters there remain unsure.
Recent CNN "poll of polls" suggest the race in Pennsylvania is tightening before the state's April 22 primary. A poll of polls calculated two days ago showed Clinton with a 6 point lead in Pennsylvania, and a poll of polls last Friday showed her on top by 11 points.
“Obama is outspending Clinton by better than two to one on television ads in Pennsylvania,” said Alan Silverleib, CNN’s senior political researcher. “Combine that with Clinton’s recent misstatement over her 1996 trip to Bosnia and the escalating chorus of voices calling on her to withdraw from the race, and you get a much tighter contest.”
Thursday's poll of polls included recent surveys from Time Magazine, American Research Group, and Quinnipiac University.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Obama election news: Despite $20 million haul, troubling signs for Clinton
The reluctant confirmation of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) campaign that it raised $20 million in March is the latest indication that the stream of money flowing to the former first lady is slowing significantly, even though aides maintain that resources are not a problem.
The mere fact that the campaign was slow to release the data is already a sign of trouble. When Clinton has done well, the campaign has sometimes not even waited until the end of the month to boast of the totals, such as in February, when the former first lady raised $35 million and the figure was announced on Feb. 29. Even after its poorest showing in January, the campaign acknowledged by Feb. 4 that it had taken in only $13.5 million.
The mere fact that the campaign was slow to release the data is already a sign of trouble. When Clinton has done well, the campaign has sometimes not even waited until the end of the month to boast of the totals, such as in February, when the former first lady raised $35 million and the figure was announced on Feb. 29. Even after its poorest showing in January, the campaign acknowledged by Feb. 4 that it had taken in only $13.5 million.
Clinton is in a politically difficult position. While her fundraising numbers would be record-shattering in any other cycle, the former first lady has consistently been second best in this year’s Democratic primary. The millions she has raised often appear to pale in comparison to the contributions Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is raking in. When Clinton announced her February haul, the Illinois senator’s campaign subsequently pointed out it raised $55 million.
Now, also running behind Obama in the delegate count, Clinton has to play catch up with an opponent who appears to have near unlimited resources to counter any attack.
The figures that are publicly available suggest that Clinton is facing a steep uphill climb — despite the fact that she raised about $20 million in March, making it her second best month to date. The Clinton campaign confirmed those reports to several media outlets on Thursday after refusing to do so earlier this week.
“Our cash flow is good. Bills are being paid. We are continuing to raise a considerable amount of money,” said Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson this week, adding that the campaign has enough money to do what it wants to do. In addition, Clinton also announced Thursday that she would buy her first TV ad in North Carolina. Her absence on the airwaves in key states like North Carolina and Indiana had been seen as another indication that money woes were plaguing the campaign.
The $20 million estimate for March, however, shows that the flow of contributions to Clinton is clearly slowing, as it was earlier this year when she loaned her campaign $5 million.
After winning primaries in Texas and Ohio at the beginning of the month, the New York senator’s campaign announced that it had raised $6 million in the first six days of March.
That means Clinton raised $14 million throughout the rest of March, for an average of less than $600,000 per day. That is about half of what she has raised per day over the previous 40 days.
In comparison, Obama has raised more than $1.4 million per day this year.
When the Clinton campaign proudly released its figures for early March, Peter Daou, the former first lady’s Internet director, said, “Hillary’s supporters have come through every time we’ve needed them, and they are setting a record pace now as we move ahead to the upcoming contests.”
The numbers, along with reports that the campaign is not paying all of its bills -- which Clinton aides have disputed -- appear to indicate that the New York senator’s donor base might not be able to stem the Obama tide.
Obama news : The real Clinton mistakes
A post-mortem on the Clinton campaign is premature, but it’s never too early to learn from mistakes. While everyone agrees mistakes were made, the nature of those errors remains a matter of debate.
• Early States vs. Many States — Some have opined that the Clinton campaign spent too much time and money on Iowa and New Hampshire at the expense of later states. I would suggest she dedicated too little to Iowa and the optimum to New Hampshire.
By the end of December, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had each raised just over $100 million and, in principle, both had about the same number of campaign days. Yet the Clinton campaign allowed the Obama team to outspend them on Iowa TV by 40 percent and to have about the same advantage in campaign events. If she had done more events and more TV in Iowa, would Hillary Clinton have won? Impossible to prove the counterfactual, but it couldn’t have hurt, and there is no doubt that had Clinton won Iowa, she would be the presumptive nominee today.
Alternatively, had she not won New Hampshire, Clinton would have been forced from the race months ago.
So while some of her Iowa spending could have been misdirected, the truth is Clinton spent too little on what matters in Iowa and about the right amount in New Hampshire.
• Micro vs. Macro — Readers of Mark Penn’s Microtrends argue that his micro-messages failed against Obama’s macro-message of change. That too is not quite right. Clinton did have a macro-message early on — experience. It was just the wrong message. Every poll for two years demonstrated that Democrats prefer change over experience by 2 to 1. Good campaigns have both macro- and micro-messages, and in the very best, the two are inextricably linked.
• A Message vs. A List — While Clinton did develop a macro-message, for too much of the campaign she merely had a list of popular proposals. A strong message beats a good list.
• Big States vs. All States — To all appearances the Clinton campaign operated from the theory that only big states count; “small” states didn’t, and that was an error as big as they come. Clinton won more than twice as many states with over 100 delegates, while Obama won nearly three times as many states with under 50 delegates. Yet Clinton’s net advantage in those big states amounted to just three delegates, while Obama’s massive victories in the largely uncontested small states gave him a 55-delegate advantage over Clinton.
Put differently, Obama got a greater delegate advantage from his win in Idaho than Clinton did from her Ohio victory, and he generated a bigger delegate lead in Kansas than she wrested from New Jersey.
• Big Money vs. All Money — In the money chase, too, the Clinton campaign played by old rules, apparently unaware of just how much this game had changed. Through Feb. 29, Clinton had a nearly $7 million advantage with the big donors, though Obama led the money race overall by a staggering $39 million. The entire difference came from donors who gave $200 or less — the fruits of Obama’s effective Internet strategy.
By its own admission the Clinton campaign left this very profitable stone largely unturned until she was forced to lend her campaign money. Not everyone can turn the Internet into a gusher, but the simple fact is that her campaign did not work the medium nearly as hard as Obama did, and it paid off for him. That’s why he is once again wildly outspending her on TV, this time in Pennsylvania, putting a once-sure Clinton win in jeopardy.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Obama News : Obama Moves to 9-point Lead Over Clinton
Barack Obama has gained support in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking report for April 4-6, and now leads Hillary Clinton by a statistically significant margin, 52% to 43%.
Obama's current 52% support level matches his highest of the year, although his margin over Clinton was slightly larger, at 52% to 42%, in March 27-29 polling. So far this year Obama has been unable to sustain a significant lead over Clinton for more than a few days. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008.
Obama had a particularly strong showing in Sunday's interviewing, and it will remain to be seen if he is able to enlarge and sustain a margin of victory in the days ahead. Two events have been in the news in recent days that, in theory, could affect Democrats' support levels for their two candidates. Bill and Hillary Clinton released their tax returns for the last eight years on Friday, reporting that they made over $100 million during that time period. Sunday Clinton's chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, resigned his position after reports that the public relations firm of which he is president had a conflict of interests with the Clinton campaign.
Obama remains tied with presumptive Republican nominee John McCain when registered voters nationally as given a hypothetical November general election matchup between the two. McCain retains a slight two percentage point margin over Clinton.
Obama's current 52% support level matches his highest of the year, although his margin over Clinton was slightly larger, at 52% to 42%, in March 27-29 polling. So far this year Obama has been unable to sustain a significant lead over Clinton for more than a few days. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008.
Obama had a particularly strong showing in Sunday's interviewing, and it will remain to be seen if he is able to enlarge and sustain a margin of victory in the days ahead. Two events have been in the news in recent days that, in theory, could affect Democrats' support levels for their two candidates. Bill and Hillary Clinton released their tax returns for the last eight years on Friday, reporting that they made over $100 million during that time period. Sunday Clinton's chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, resigned his position after reports that the public relations firm of which he is president had a conflict of interests with the Clinton campaign.
Obama remains tied with presumptive Republican nominee John McCain when registered voters nationally as given a hypothetical November general election matchup between the two. McCain retains a slight two percentage point margin over Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)