I think even I may have presidential fatigue, and not just the kind that comes after 7.5 years of the Bush administration. With no one actually voting until April 22nd (Pennsylvania) and then on May 6th (Indiana and North Carolina), the campaigns have gone stagnant. Clinton did her part by stirring up the Wright mess, but Obama pushed back with one of the most important speeches of a generation (not to be hyperbolic or anything). Bill Richardson followed his heart and his head, endorsing Barack shortly after, but no other super delegates followed his lead.
But other than that, the echo chamber has been left to debate the after-effects of the Wright debacle. At least they get to finally talk about race, which is making Pat Buchanan so happy that he might explode, covering Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski with Hot, Nativist Craziness. Until a new story breaks, we're stuck with this one, so hopefully Barack can just wait it out. Stories like the Hillary's Bosnia lie, which she somehow made about Wright. I'm sure more stories like that are out there: ones that undermine the whole argument for her candidacy.
Not having cable news for a few days has been a mixed blessing. I feel a little out of the loop, getting all of my info from the blogosphere. But, I don't have to here about the daily movements of tracking polls that look like this:
The race is basically tied, and nothing in the last two weeks has changed that: not Wright, not Richardson, not Bosnia. I believe the double-helix structure goes back even farther, probably to right around March 5th.
It is clear that as long as HRC has a mathematically possible (though highly unlikely) path to the nomination, she will not bow out gracefully. Are there any circumstances that would change this? Howard Dean working with other party leaders to finally fix it? An Obama upset in Pennsylvania? The elusive Gore endorsement of BHO? My guess is none or even all of these will do the trick. See you at the convention!
Due to a confluence of events (leaving my job, getting a new one, moving 500 miles away, and other Major Life Changes), I haven't posted in a while. But as I get settled in my new job and have more freedom with my online activities, I will be getting back into the swing of things.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
So, from the campaign that repeatedly plays the race card and justifies itself with the gender card, here comes a high-level surrogate with some of the ugliest rhetoric so far. The first quote is bad enough - it sounds very much like the criticism hurled at successful African Americans in the age of affirmative action: "oh, he got where he is because he's black." The galling irony of the second quote is that the Obama campaign is supposedly racist for being upset about a race-based attack? Very rich, coming from the campaign that finds misogyny in every political debate.
Worse yet is that this may not be accidental, despite the admonishments from the Clinton campaign. Polls close in Mississippi in about 5 minutes, and Barack Obama will no doubt win big by dominating with the black vote (even though Clinton will maintain close in delegates because of gerrymandered districts). But maybe the Clinton's know that they're not getting the black vote back, not with Barack in the race, and certainly not after South Carolina. So what's the difference in losing that bloc 80-20 or 90-10? Why not go after the Reagan Democrats with something they understand: racism. Not only does it help her in the South and the Rustbelt, but it will further polarize the electorate and stigmatize Obama as "the black candidate." Just a thought - hopefully I'm not finding racism where there is none.
Edit: Check out the end of the clip of Ferraro on Fox News:
Don't antagonize me, Barack. I'm a Democratic Party fundraiser - you NEED me. If I call her a relic of a broken system and mention that she was on one of the worst Democratic tickets ever, am I misogynistic?
With 3 days to go until the Texas/Ohio/Vermont/Rhode Island primaries, the final picture is starting to come into focus. Despite all the hype, it looks like the real battle will be in framing the results. The most likely outcome is two states to each candidate, with a small delegate difference, making March 4th resemble the near-tie that we had on February 5th rather than a decisive win for either Obama or Clinton. Here are the current Pollster trends:
Texas is not a slam dunk for Obama, but his momentum over the last two weeks cannot be denied. Wild cards include the effects of early voting, state senate based allocation of delegates, and what are sure to be chaotic and contested caucuses. Still, I think it will all add up for an Obama win.
Despite similar demographics to Wisconsin and a larger African-American population, Obama's momentum hasn't been enough to catch Clinton in Ohio. It looks like Clinton's base is sticking with her. However, even a win here will barely net her any delegates. Obviously, that won't stop Penn/Wolfson/et al from harping about it, reality be damned.
Vermont and Rhode Island seem to be securely in the fold for Obama and Clinton, respectively. Even large wins will result in small delegate gains, but neither campaign is taking these states for granted, campaigning there between longer stays in Ohio and Texas.
Whereas a tie a month ago began the momentum towards Obama, a tie at this point hurts him. The Clinton campaign has been casting Obama as the frontrunner, with the March 4th primaries as a referendum on his status as such. For all their strategic incompetence, the Clinton campaign has been able to move the goalposts at their will. Luckily, Obama will most likely still hold a delegate lead as the calendar again starts to favor him. So, instead of ending her campaign once and for all, the slugfest will continue, possibly until April 22nd (a discouraging thought).
I also want to use this post to note how Obama has been able to turn Clinton's narrative against her. All the talk on Friday was about Clinton's ad titled "Children," with most pundits putting it in the fear-mongering category with "Daisies" from '64 and "Red Phone" from the Democratic primary in '84.
It's the same old message: I'm experienced, ready on day one, etc. Except now, appealing directly and superficially to the mothering instincts of women voters. Even her campaign couldn't name a "3am moment" in her career during a conference call, prattling on about military endorsements and the Armed Services Committee.
So, within about 12 hours of the ad coming out, the Obama team crafted a brilliant response ad that is a tribute to the professionalism and message discipline of his campaign. The ad insists that she had her 3am moment and blew it: the Iraq War vote.
As has been noted, the ability to fight off attack ads will no doubt help Obama in the general. And by the looks of March 4th, he'll have to fight off Clinton for another two months.
