Actress says Downey Jr. convinced her to do film ‘people actually see’
Access Hollywood
updated 10:04 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 28, 2008
LOS ANGELES - They’ve opened the movie around the world and now the stars of “Iron Man” are gearing up for the film’s US release, this Friday.
The summer’s first potential blockbuster stars Robert Downey Jr. as the Iron Man, and drama-film darling Gwyneth Paltrow as his love interest, Christine Everhart. Taking on the role puts Paltrow in some illustrious company – Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Kirsten Dunst and Kate Bosworth, all of whom have played superhero leading ladies.
While the part is something new for Paltrow, she was convinced to take it on after her leading man suggested she break out of the art film market.
”(Robert) was very sweet when he called me, and I think we had both kind of been doing these kind of labor of love art films that had been seen by like 16 people, and he said to me ‘Don’t you wanna be in a movie that people actually see?’” Paltrow recounted. “And I thought ‘I never thought of that!’ So, I’m really, really glad that I did it.”
Thanks to the joys Paltrow experienced making the film and the enthusiasm already surrounding it, she is looking forward to, perhaps, a sequel.
“I [am] so happy people are loving it, and getting so excited about it, but the truth is that the experience was so wonderful, and such a happy, happy time. That’s really why I’m so happy that I did it,” she said. “The idea that there could be another one, and we could get our little family back together — it would be great.”
Another thing Paltrow is excited over is Hollywood employing herself, Liv Tyler and Maggie Gylenhaal in this summer’s biggest action films – “Iron Man,” “The Incredible Hulk” and “Batman: The Dark Knight,” respectively.
“What’s nice is that the three of us are, not to say other people aren’t, but we’re really committed to our work as actors,” Paltrow said. “I think we’ve all come from a lot of independent cinema, we come from a kind of different world. I think it’s very cool that we’re being embraced by mainstream Hollywood in that way because they could easily cast 18-year-old girls, who are more attractive, and had lovelier busts than us. I think it says a lot for the movies that they wanted women who are interesting, and who are from more kind of the more independent world.”
Copyright 2008 by NBC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24359915/
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Jadesola Akande, ex-LASU VC, dies at 67
Jadesola Akande, ex-LASU VC, dies at 67
The Punch
By Tony Amokeodo, Segun Olugbile, Chinyere Fred-Adegbulugbe, Mudiaga Affe, Lekan Adetayo.
Published: Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008
A former Vice Chancelor, Lagos State University, Ojo, Prof. Jadesola Akande, is dead.
Skip to next paragraph
click to expand image
Photo file
Late Prof. Jadesola Akande
The deceased, a lawyer, researcher and administrator, was 67.
One of her children, Dayo Debo-Akande, confirmed her passage at her Ikoyi, Lagos residence on Tuesday.
“One of her aides told me that she died in her sleep. We will miss her a lot. Her wealth of experience was second to none, “ Dayo told one of our correspondents on the telephone.
The Akande and Esan families also confirmed the renowned academic’s death in a statement.
“The families of Chief Debo Akande (SAN) and Chief Esan of Ibadanland announce the passing away quietly in her sleep on April 29, 2008 of their daughter, wife, mother, grandmother, sister and aunty, Prof. Jadesola Olayinka Debo-Akande, OFR,” they said.
A lady, who identified herself as Akande’s personal assistant said her boss “did not complain of any sickness” before she left her (Akande) residence on Monday.
The deceased’s son-in-law, Mr. Tokunbo Coker, told one of our correspondents that Akande visited their house around 5.30pm on Monday and discussed with him and her daughter after which she took mango with them.
“It was unbelievable when I learnt that my mother-in-law died in her sleep this (Tuesday) morning. Her body was still warm when I got to her residence at Ikoyi at 11 am,” he said.
Akande’s last public outing was of at lecture marking the 70th birthday of a human rights activist, Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), in Lagos on Monday.
At the event, Akande, who until her death was an Executive Director with the Women, Law and Development Centre, officiated the cutting of Fawehinmi’s birthday cake and prayed for his quick recovery.
Among those who reacted to her passage were Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola (SAN), the President, Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Olisa Agbakoba; a former Vice -Chancellor, University of Lagos, Prof. Oye Ibidapo-Obe, and his successor, Prof. Tolu Odugbemi.
Others were the President, Campaign for Democracy, Dr. Joe Okei-Odumakin, the Executive Director, Women Advocate for Research and Documentation Centre, Mrs. Abiola Akiode-Afolabi; and Dr. Keziah Awosika.
The Special Adviser (Media) to Fashola, Mr. Akeem Bello, said in a statement that the governor visited the family house of the former vice-chancellor in company with his predecessor, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu.
Fashola advised the “family members who were equally shocked by the sudden transition of the respected legal scholar to take solace in the fact that she lived a very fruitful and fulfilled life.”
In the condolence register opened for the deceased, the governor wrote, “Dear Aunty Jade, rest in the bosom of your Creator.”
He described her as a “distinguished Nigerian who built many leaders as well as the nation.”
In the condolence register, Agbakoba (SAN) wrote, “This is a shocking and terrible news. A great loss to the legal profession and Nigeria. A legal icon and an academic giant.”
Agbakoba later issued a statement in which he described Akande as “a legal giant and a woman of substance.”
While Ibidapo-Obe said the deceased was “an unrelenting advocate for women‘s rights and empowerment,” Odugbemi described her as a ”pleasant and brilliant academic,” who would be missed by academics and those in the legal profession.
A Judge of High Court of Lagos, Justice Joseph Oyewole, said Akande lived a fulfilled life.
Awosika, who is Akande’s partner at WLDC, said they both spoke on the telephone between 10.30 and 11pm on Monday night about a meeting scheduled for Tuesday.
“We talked and discussed about the meeting we were supposed to have in the office today (Tuesday),” she said, before breaking down in tears.
Akiode-Afolabi said Akande’s death was a great loss to Nigeria.
”She was a woman of courage, a woman of profound intellect and very resourceful. She was the last woman standing and she had contributed her quota to the struggle for a better society,” she said.
Also, the Pro-National Conference Organisation said in a statement by its spokesperson, Mr. Wale Okunniyi, that Akande would be remembered for drafting the people’s constitution launched by PRONACO on May 22, 2007.
“PRONACO and the entire democratic movement will no doubt miss her fearless contributions to the renewed effort at reforming the Nigerian polity, ” he said.
Born on November 15, 1940, Akande, a distinguished jurist, was a law graduate of the University College, London. She was called to the bar at Inner Temple in 1963.
Akande returned to the country in 1965 and worked in the West Regional Civil Service as an administrative officer/state council for a year before she proceeded to the Nigerian Law School.
The Punch
By Tony Amokeodo, Segun Olugbile, Chinyere Fred-Adegbulugbe, Mudiaga Affe, Lekan Adetayo.
Published: Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008
A former Vice Chancelor, Lagos State University, Ojo, Prof. Jadesola Akande, is dead.
Skip to next paragraph
click to expand image
Photo file
Late Prof. Jadesola Akande
The deceased, a lawyer, researcher and administrator, was 67.
One of her children, Dayo Debo-Akande, confirmed her passage at her Ikoyi, Lagos residence on Tuesday.
“One of her aides told me that she died in her sleep. We will miss her a lot. Her wealth of experience was second to none, “ Dayo told one of our correspondents on the telephone.
The Akande and Esan families also confirmed the renowned academic’s death in a statement.
“The families of Chief Debo Akande (SAN) and Chief Esan of Ibadanland announce the passing away quietly in her sleep on April 29, 2008 of their daughter, wife, mother, grandmother, sister and aunty, Prof. Jadesola Olayinka Debo-Akande, OFR,” they said.
A lady, who identified herself as Akande’s personal assistant said her boss “did not complain of any sickness” before she left her (Akande) residence on Monday.
The deceased’s son-in-law, Mr. Tokunbo Coker, told one of our correspondents that Akande visited their house around 5.30pm on Monday and discussed with him and her daughter after which she took mango with them.
“It was unbelievable when I learnt that my mother-in-law died in her sleep this (Tuesday) morning. Her body was still warm when I got to her residence at Ikoyi at 11 am,” he said.
Akande’s last public outing was of at lecture marking the 70th birthday of a human rights activist, Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), in Lagos on Monday.
At the event, Akande, who until her death was an Executive Director with the Women, Law and Development Centre, officiated the cutting of Fawehinmi’s birthday cake and prayed for his quick recovery.
Among those who reacted to her passage were Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola (SAN), the President, Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Olisa Agbakoba; a former Vice -Chancellor, University of Lagos, Prof. Oye Ibidapo-Obe, and his successor, Prof. Tolu Odugbemi.
Others were the President, Campaign for Democracy, Dr. Joe Okei-Odumakin, the Executive Director, Women Advocate for Research and Documentation Centre, Mrs. Abiola Akiode-Afolabi; and Dr. Keziah Awosika.
The Special Adviser (Media) to Fashola, Mr. Akeem Bello, said in a statement that the governor visited the family house of the former vice-chancellor in company with his predecessor, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu.
Fashola advised the “family members who were equally shocked by the sudden transition of the respected legal scholar to take solace in the fact that she lived a very fruitful and fulfilled life.”
In the condolence register opened for the deceased, the governor wrote, “Dear Aunty Jade, rest in the bosom of your Creator.”
He described her as a “distinguished Nigerian who built many leaders as well as the nation.”
In the condolence register, Agbakoba (SAN) wrote, “This is a shocking and terrible news. A great loss to the legal profession and Nigeria. A legal icon and an academic giant.”
Agbakoba later issued a statement in which he described Akande as “a legal giant and a woman of substance.”
While Ibidapo-Obe said the deceased was “an unrelenting advocate for women‘s rights and empowerment,” Odugbemi described her as a ”pleasant and brilliant academic,” who would be missed by academics and those in the legal profession.
A Judge of High Court of Lagos, Justice Joseph Oyewole, said Akande lived a fulfilled life.
Awosika, who is Akande’s partner at WLDC, said they both spoke on the telephone between 10.30 and 11pm on Monday night about a meeting scheduled for Tuesday.
“We talked and discussed about the meeting we were supposed to have in the office today (Tuesday),” she said, before breaking down in tears.
Akiode-Afolabi said Akande’s death was a great loss to Nigeria.
”She was a woman of courage, a woman of profound intellect and very resourceful. She was the last woman standing and she had contributed her quota to the struggle for a better society,” she said.
Also, the Pro-National Conference Organisation said in a statement by its spokesperson, Mr. Wale Okunniyi, that Akande would be remembered for drafting the people’s constitution launched by PRONACO on May 22, 2007.
“PRONACO and the entire democratic movement will no doubt miss her fearless contributions to the renewed effort at reforming the Nigerian polity, ” he said.
Born on November 15, 1940, Akande, a distinguished jurist, was a law graduate of the University College, London. She was called to the bar at Inner Temple in 1963.
Akande returned to the country in 1965 and worked in the West Regional Civil Service as an administrative officer/state council for a year before she proceeded to the Nigerian Law School.
Obama Discovers Wright's Unsavory (It Only Took 20 Years!)
Obama Discovers Wright's Unsavory (It Only Took 20 Years!)/
By Michael Goldfarg
It's official – Barack Obama, however belatedly, threw his Meshugenah Minister under the bus at a press conference today. According to Obama's telling, Jeremiah Wright's appearance yesterday at the National Press Club made it clear to Obama that Wright is a crackpot, a lunatic, a nut. (The preceding are my terms, not Obama's.) So, in other words, Wright's oddness managed to elude Obama during 20 years of spiritual mentorship and while the Obamas were sending $40,000 worth of support to Wright, but yesterday Obama had a proverbial Road to Damascus experience. At the risk of being blunt, pull the other leg, Senator – there are bells on it.
Obama's style during the extended presser is worth some commentary. His delivery, as is ever the case when he doesn't have a teleprompter, was weak and halting. He claimed outrage, but instead he showed a low energy level form of sorrow.
I thought of three other political appearances while watching the Obama press conference:
1) Just prior to the Iraq War, President Bush gave a presser where he tried to emphasize his seriousness and not look at all cowboy-ish. The results were disastrous. The press labeled Bush as “slouching off to war” thanks to his grim, low energy efforts. Similarly, Obama should have shown some feistiness and fighting spirit today. Instead he looked like a beaten man. (Perhaps he had seen the latest SUSA Poll for North Carolina that shows Hillary Clinton pulling to within 5 points.)
2) Ted Kennedy's “Mudd Slide” – Ted Kennedy's 1980 presidential ambitions bit the dust when he stumbled over a series of innocuous questions that Roger Mudd asked him. That interview has long been the gold standard for a politician giving a disastrous interview. Like Kennedy during the Mudd Slide, Obama was strikingly inarticulate. Obama always says "um" a lot when speaking extemporaneously, but today's effort was particularly disastrous in that regard. Obama said he was outraged by Wright, but he spoke slowly and laconically, hardly traits that one typically associates with outrage.
3) Bill Clinton in the immediate aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing called the perpetrators cowards and vowed that they would face vengeance. Clinton was visibly angry, and appropriately so. It was the first time in his presidency that he obviously was telling the truth. His tone and his emotions matched the moment perfectly.
Obama needed to forcefcully and perhaps a bit angrily distance himself from Reverend Wright. Reverend Wright's comments would outrage just about every American, and Obama had more reason to be furious than most. And yet he spoke in measured and hesitant tones. Some might think this style evidences a heightened state of thoughtfulness. Regardless, Obama’s tone today did not match the moment.
As such, it will do nothing to put this issue to bed.
Posted by Dean Barnett on April 29, 2008 02:47 PM | Permalink
By Michael Goldfarg
It's official – Barack Obama, however belatedly, threw his Meshugenah Minister under the bus at a press conference today. According to Obama's telling, Jeremiah Wright's appearance yesterday at the National Press Club made it clear to Obama that Wright is a crackpot, a lunatic, a nut. (The preceding are my terms, not Obama's.) So, in other words, Wright's oddness managed to elude Obama during 20 years of spiritual mentorship and while the Obamas were sending $40,000 worth of support to Wright, but yesterday Obama had a proverbial Road to Damascus experience. At the risk of being blunt, pull the other leg, Senator – there are bells on it.
Obama's style during the extended presser is worth some commentary. His delivery, as is ever the case when he doesn't have a teleprompter, was weak and halting. He claimed outrage, but instead he showed a low energy level form of sorrow.
I thought of three other political appearances while watching the Obama press conference:
1) Just prior to the Iraq War, President Bush gave a presser where he tried to emphasize his seriousness and not look at all cowboy-ish. The results were disastrous. The press labeled Bush as “slouching off to war” thanks to his grim, low energy efforts. Similarly, Obama should have shown some feistiness and fighting spirit today. Instead he looked like a beaten man. (Perhaps he had seen the latest SUSA Poll for North Carolina that shows Hillary Clinton pulling to within 5 points.)
2) Ted Kennedy's “Mudd Slide” – Ted Kennedy's 1980 presidential ambitions bit the dust when he stumbled over a series of innocuous questions that Roger Mudd asked him. That interview has long been the gold standard for a politician giving a disastrous interview. Like Kennedy during the Mudd Slide, Obama was strikingly inarticulate. Obama always says "um" a lot when speaking extemporaneously, but today's effort was particularly disastrous in that regard. Obama said he was outraged by Wright, but he spoke slowly and laconically, hardly traits that one typically associates with outrage.
3) Bill Clinton in the immediate aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing called the perpetrators cowards and vowed that they would face vengeance. Clinton was visibly angry, and appropriately so. It was the first time in his presidency that he obviously was telling the truth. His tone and his emotions matched the moment perfectly.
Obama needed to forcefcully and perhaps a bit angrily distance himself from Reverend Wright. Reverend Wright's comments would outrage just about every American, and Obama had more reason to be furious than most. And yet he spoke in measured and hesitant tones. Some might think this style evidences a heightened state of thoughtfulness. Regardless, Obama’s tone today did not match the moment.
As such, it will do nothing to put this issue to bed.
Posted by Dean Barnett on April 29, 2008 02:47 PM | Permalink
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
No fumbles for Jason on ‘Dancing’
No fumbles for Jason on ‘Dancing’
The defensive end rises to the top, while another dancer falls on the floor
COMMENTARY
By Ree Hines
MSNBC contributor
updated 11:57 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 28, 2008
Monday was mix-up night on “Dancing with the Stars,” as each celebrity hoofer took on two very different routines. The first round of major moves was strictly ballroom, and Latin numbers finished out the night. But the dances weren’t the only drastic differences.
For the first week in the season, dancing queen Kristi Yamaguchi fell from the top of the leaderboard, finally allowing her closest competitor to grab the spotlight. Steady climber Cristián de la Fuente wasn’t as lucky.
Twists and turns
First on the floor was last week’s surprise comeback kid, Marissa Jaret Winokur. On the heels of her highest score to date, she took on the tango and scored even higher. It wasn’t the most daring tango the competition’s seen so far, but it marked a drastic change in emotion and style for Marissa as she maintained the intensity of her lusty character. Head judge Len Goodman admitted that the Broadway star failed to impress him in the first couple of weeks in the game, but called this her “best dance.” It was all nines from the panel.
When she returned for the Latin round, the rumba proved a bigger challenge for Marissa. Sure, it was sweetly romantic, but that’s not what the saucy dance is about. Maybe the stress of two passionate powerhouse dances got to her, but she just didn’t work the number. As Len pointed out, there was hardly any hip action. Even though Bruno Tonioli called that the “cardinal sin of the rumba” in the past, he stayed mum on the hip matter. Even with a slightly lower score this time, her overall for the night was 52 out of 60, landing Marissa and Tony Dovolani in third place — their highest spot yet.
Though he didn’t fare as well as Marissa for the night, Cristián de la Fuente started out strong. In the Viennese waltz, Cristián proved he’s really what the show is about: a celebrity amateur gaining ground with practice. The waltz showed that he’s learned from the judges’ criticisms, leading with his toes and gaining fluidity when the dance calls for it. Carrie Ann Inaba felt the dance lacked energy, which sounds about right for the Viennese waltz, actually. He earned the two eights and a nine for the effort.
Then it all fell apart. For his encore, Cristián sambaed alongside pro Cheryl Burke. Well, he tried. He got into the hip swinging action, but couldn’t maintain his focus when a muscle in his left forearm cramped. Cristián deserves some credit for attempting to continue the dance, but it fell apart, and he very nearly fell onto his partner by the end. The panel called him brave before the medics took him away, but handed him only 21 points for the flawed routine, leaving him with a low score of 46 for both rounds.
Can’t win ’em all
How do you follow up on perfection? Ideally with a repeat, but that wasn’t the case for Kristi and Mark Ballas. While their beautiful Viennese waltz flowed, it also featured tiny timing flaws, visible to eagle-eyed judges Bruno and Carrie Ann. For Len, the real problem was the use of a prop (an umbrella in the rain-themed dance), so the performance was just 26-worthy.
For their second dance, an amazingly well synched cha-cha-cha, Kristi and Mark should have seen all 10s, but Len’s eight was the lone holdout. Never a fan of modern moves, the out-of-date official balked at a set of hip-hop shoulder rolls the pair played, and it was worth a 2-point deduction to him. Harsh, especially since that left Kristi with 54 for the night.
Fans let Mario down last week. His first 10 amounted to nothing, as he landed in the bottom two all the same. With something to prove this time, expectations were high for the R&B star. Unfortunately, the foxtrot wasn’t his dance. Mario had all the fancy footwork, but missed a handhold and just didn’t ace it overall. For the first time ever, Carrie Ann requested a stiffer approach, and the others agreed, giving Mario just 24.
The mambo was more up to Mario’s speed. In fact, it was the perfect dance for a man who’s always willing to throw his hips into the action. The number featured as many spins as a Viennese waltz, while maintaining the Latin flavor. The only real trouble came when he and partner Karina Smirnoff fell out of time for a few moves. It was all nines, and Mario had a score of 51 out of 60 when it was over.
Another couple with something to prove was Shannon Elizabeth and Derek Hough. After the pair performed a lackluster rumba last week, and whined about the reaction, Shannon apologized for the venting and promised to show some big moves this time. She did that with an odd and hectic tango that satisfied the judges all the same.
With a set of matching nines for the previous dance, their mambo failed as a follow-up. Fighting back against the officials’ take on her lack of hip shaking, Shannon donned a false booty and moved her hips back and forth across the judges’ table. That would have been a fine statement had she backed up the moves on the dance floor. Instead, her shirtless partner Derek Hough took all the attention. In the end, it was just a 51 out of 60 for the couple.
Top of the heap
It had to happen eventually. Kristi’s six-week streak at the top of the leaderboard came to an end, and Jason Taylor was right there to take her spot. With an adventurous quickstep, Jason leapt off the stairs, threw the judges’ paperwork and even added in a handstand. The wow moves inspired Len and the gang. Bruno called it “the dance of the night,” and the 29 it earned made for the highest score of the night, too.
Jason’s second routine may not have matched the point value of the quickstep, but it did make a statement. In “Dancing With the Stars’” first football-themed paso doble, Jason played the defensive end bullfighter to Edyta Sliwinska’s Miami Dolphins colored cape. It was odder still as they danced the drama to the “Monday Night Football” theme song. Talk about taking a gimmick all the way. But, hey, with a total of 55 out of 60, winning made it all worthwhile.
Tuesday night’s results show is shaping up to be a big question mark. Cristián, who’s had his moment in the red light before, scored lowest overall, but the voting public tends vote with their hearts following an injury — that certainly helped Marie Osmond keep up the dismal dancing days after her fainting spell last season. So that shifts the focus onto Mario and Shannon, who tied for fourth place. Mario’s fans left him hanging in the bottom two last week, but Shannon’s overdue for that honor herself. In other words, flip a coin!
Ree Hines is a regular contributor to msnbc.com.
© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24358778/
The defensive end rises to the top, while another dancer falls on the floor
COMMENTARY
By Ree Hines
MSNBC contributor
updated 11:57 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 28, 2008
Monday was mix-up night on “Dancing with the Stars,” as each celebrity hoofer took on two very different routines. The first round of major moves was strictly ballroom, and Latin numbers finished out the night. But the dances weren’t the only drastic differences.
For the first week in the season, dancing queen Kristi Yamaguchi fell from the top of the leaderboard, finally allowing her closest competitor to grab the spotlight. Steady climber Cristián de la Fuente wasn’t as lucky.
Twists and turns
First on the floor was last week’s surprise comeback kid, Marissa Jaret Winokur. On the heels of her highest score to date, she took on the tango and scored even higher. It wasn’t the most daring tango the competition’s seen so far, but it marked a drastic change in emotion and style for Marissa as she maintained the intensity of her lusty character. Head judge Len Goodman admitted that the Broadway star failed to impress him in the first couple of weeks in the game, but called this her “best dance.” It was all nines from the panel.
When she returned for the Latin round, the rumba proved a bigger challenge for Marissa. Sure, it was sweetly romantic, but that’s not what the saucy dance is about. Maybe the stress of two passionate powerhouse dances got to her, but she just didn’t work the number. As Len pointed out, there was hardly any hip action. Even though Bruno Tonioli called that the “cardinal sin of the rumba” in the past, he stayed mum on the hip matter. Even with a slightly lower score this time, her overall for the night was 52 out of 60, landing Marissa and Tony Dovolani in third place — their highest spot yet.
Though he didn’t fare as well as Marissa for the night, Cristián de la Fuente started out strong. In the Viennese waltz, Cristián proved he’s really what the show is about: a celebrity amateur gaining ground with practice. The waltz showed that he’s learned from the judges’ criticisms, leading with his toes and gaining fluidity when the dance calls for it. Carrie Ann Inaba felt the dance lacked energy, which sounds about right for the Viennese waltz, actually. He earned the two eights and a nine for the effort.
Then it all fell apart. For his encore, Cristián sambaed alongside pro Cheryl Burke. Well, he tried. He got into the hip swinging action, but couldn’t maintain his focus when a muscle in his left forearm cramped. Cristián deserves some credit for attempting to continue the dance, but it fell apart, and he very nearly fell onto his partner by the end. The panel called him brave before the medics took him away, but handed him only 21 points for the flawed routine, leaving him with a low score of 46 for both rounds.
Can’t win ’em all
How do you follow up on perfection? Ideally with a repeat, but that wasn’t the case for Kristi and Mark Ballas. While their beautiful Viennese waltz flowed, it also featured tiny timing flaws, visible to eagle-eyed judges Bruno and Carrie Ann. For Len, the real problem was the use of a prop (an umbrella in the rain-themed dance), so the performance was just 26-worthy.
For their second dance, an amazingly well synched cha-cha-cha, Kristi and Mark should have seen all 10s, but Len’s eight was the lone holdout. Never a fan of modern moves, the out-of-date official balked at a set of hip-hop shoulder rolls the pair played, and it was worth a 2-point deduction to him. Harsh, especially since that left Kristi with 54 for the night.
Fans let Mario down last week. His first 10 amounted to nothing, as he landed in the bottom two all the same. With something to prove this time, expectations were high for the R&B star. Unfortunately, the foxtrot wasn’t his dance. Mario had all the fancy footwork, but missed a handhold and just didn’t ace it overall. For the first time ever, Carrie Ann requested a stiffer approach, and the others agreed, giving Mario just 24.
The mambo was more up to Mario’s speed. In fact, it was the perfect dance for a man who’s always willing to throw his hips into the action. The number featured as many spins as a Viennese waltz, while maintaining the Latin flavor. The only real trouble came when he and partner Karina Smirnoff fell out of time for a few moves. It was all nines, and Mario had a score of 51 out of 60 when it was over.
Another couple with something to prove was Shannon Elizabeth and Derek Hough. After the pair performed a lackluster rumba last week, and whined about the reaction, Shannon apologized for the venting and promised to show some big moves this time. She did that with an odd and hectic tango that satisfied the judges all the same.
With a set of matching nines for the previous dance, their mambo failed as a follow-up. Fighting back against the officials’ take on her lack of hip shaking, Shannon donned a false booty and moved her hips back and forth across the judges’ table. That would have been a fine statement had she backed up the moves on the dance floor. Instead, her shirtless partner Derek Hough took all the attention. In the end, it was just a 51 out of 60 for the couple.
Top of the heap
It had to happen eventually. Kristi’s six-week streak at the top of the leaderboard came to an end, and Jason Taylor was right there to take her spot. With an adventurous quickstep, Jason leapt off the stairs, threw the judges’ paperwork and even added in a handstand. The wow moves inspired Len and the gang. Bruno called it “the dance of the night,” and the 29 it earned made for the highest score of the night, too.
Jason’s second routine may not have matched the point value of the quickstep, but it did make a statement. In “Dancing With the Stars’” first football-themed paso doble, Jason played the defensive end bullfighter to Edyta Sliwinska’s Miami Dolphins colored cape. It was odder still as they danced the drama to the “Monday Night Football” theme song. Talk about taking a gimmick all the way. But, hey, with a total of 55 out of 60, winning made it all worthwhile.
Tuesday night’s results show is shaping up to be a big question mark. Cristián, who’s had his moment in the red light before, scored lowest overall, but the voting public tends vote with their hearts following an injury — that certainly helped Marie Osmond keep up the dismal dancing days after her fainting spell last season. So that shifts the focus onto Mario and Shannon, who tied for fourth place. Mario’s fans left him hanging in the bottom two last week, but Shannon’s overdue for that honor herself. In other words, flip a coin!
Ree Hines is a regular contributor to msnbc.com.
© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24358778/
Questions without Answers
April 27, 2008
Questions without Answers
Jay CostThere is a continuing conversation about whether Barack Obama can win working class whites in November. Some, such as John Judis, have argued that perhaps he cannot. Like McGovern, he will cede those voters to the Republicans. Others have argued that disaffection with Bush and the GOP will overcome any problems Obama might have with these voters.
So, who is right? I do not know. In fact, I don't think the question can be answered.
Before we get into this, we should probably be more specific. After all, it is wrong to assert that Obama cannot win the white working class. He did exactly that in Wisconsin. His problem has been the white working class in certain geographical reasons. The following graph, provided by Sean Oxendine, tells the tale.
Obama's weakest performances among whites have been in Appalachia, which is traced in solid black. Oxendine has put counties that Obama won in green, counties that Clinton won in blue. Note the expanse of deep, dark blue that moves from Mississippi to New York. This is where Obama has had his greatest problems. This is why Clinton will not drop out next week, even if she loses Indiana. West Virginia comes the week after, and Kentucky the week after that. She's bound to win both, and candidates do not drop out immediately prior to impending victories.
In all likelihood, weak general election performances in Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia will not cost Obama the presidency - though he would be the first Democrat ever to win the White House having lost all three. The trouble comes with southern Ohio and western Pennsylvania.
To appreciate Obama's potential dilemma, consider the following chart. It examines Clinton's primary victories in the counties of metropolitan Pittsburgh compared to the general election performance of Republican candidates dating back to 1972.
The first thing you'll notice is that the term "Reagan Democrat" is a bit of a misnomer here. In fact, Reagan barely improved over Ford, and his landslide reelection was nothing compared to Nixon's. Aside from Nixon, George W. Bush has performed best in metropolitan Pittsburgh.
Next, notice the wide variability in vote returns. Outside Allegheny County, where the African American vote provides a solid base for the Democrats, we see twenty-point swings in these counties.
Finally, turn to the primary results from last week. Obama did very poorly across the entire metropolitan area. Allegheny County was the sole exception. Interestingly, Fayette County is the poorest county in all of Pennsylvania, and no Pennsylvania county supported Clinton more strongly.
This is what John Judis is worried about. Even if you allocate most of Clinton's voters to Obama in November, he still might face trouble in metropolitan Pittsburgh. It might be that metro Pittsburgh Democrats, by swinging so heavily to Clinton, have indicated that the region as a whole is unimpressed by Obama and will therefore back McCain. Even if strong Democrats support Obama - weak Democrats, Independents, and persuadable Republicans might not.
What happens if counties like Fayette swing against Obama? It depends on how big the swing is. Would it be on the order of 1984, 2004, or (worst case scenario) 1972? Depending on the size of the swing, Pennsylvania could become trouble for him. After all, Obama had problems not just in metro Pittsburgh, but also in the northeast. He lost Lackawanna County by 48 points, and Luzerne County by 50 points. Kerry won both counties in 2004. Obama should pull a big victory out of Philadelphia, but trouble in the northeast and southwest would put more pressure on metro Philly to perform.
Ohio could also be trouble. Bill Clinton won the state in 1996 largely because he won the same counties that gave Obama just 30% of the primary vote. These are the counties that hug the Ohio River Valley in the second, sixth, and eighteenth congressional districts. Again, Obama might be able to improve on Kerry in the suburbs of Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus - but trouble in the southeast would put more pressure on these areas.
Obama might also have trouble in Missouri. Oxendine's map does not indicate it, but he was very weak in southern Missouri, especially in the seventh and eighth districts. Many of these counties split their votes in 1996, which is one reason why Bill Clinton won the state twelve years ago.
In all, these results have been so lopsided that people have begun to wonder about Obama. Can he hold the line in these places? If he can't, will that cost him these states, and therefore the presidency itself? Some people see this happening. Some do not. This is what has brought about this discussion. His poor showings in these places is a bit of a puzzle, and has induced a debate.
What I find interesting about the conversation over places like Fayette County is that people from there are not really participating in it, at least on their own terms. Their role in the discussion is mediated by the public opinion survey. They merely answer the questions the pollsters ask them.
So, if you think about it, the voters' ability to influence the conversation is really quite constrained. In a statewide survey of Pennsylvania, you might get three or four residents from Fayette who answer "yes" or "no" to a handful of questions. That's it. No amplification permitted.
This makes me wonder about these competing theories. Just how much do they depend on the theorists, and how much on the voters?
What is more, the candidate in question happens to be black. This further limits the utility of the polls. There has been a heated debate in political science for a quarter century over whether white America has become less racist, or whether its racism has become less transparent. Researchers have found that whites now tend to answer straightforward questions about race in a much less racist way. However, some researchers claim to detect racism in responses to seemingly unrelated questions. Others vehemently disagree. Putting aside the merits of the arguments pro and con, the point is that polls have failed to arbitrate the dispute. Researchers look at the same answers to the same questions, yet see two different opinions.
Those outside the academy have been struggling with similar difficulties as regards the "Bradley Effect." Like so-called "latent racism," the issue hinges on whether public opinion surveys give us a clear read on the thinking of the American voter.
Unfortunately, they probably do not. They are limited, imperfect tools for understanding him - especially on the issue of race. Above all, they tightly restrict his role - and therefore limit his ability to influence our conclusions about him. It is very possible for a researcher or pundit to approach the polls with erroneous preconceived notions, and have the data's ambiguity "validate" the false theory.
The problem is that we are exclusively dependent upon the polls for our understanding of public opinion. Nobody is really going "out there" to interact with average people, to find out what they are thinking. We have the polls, and that is all we have. So, we only know as much as they tell us. When they are silent, ambiguous, or misleading, we are ignorant.
They did not always monopolize our knowledge base. While studying for my qualifying exam in American politics several years ago, one of my favorite reads was a dusty old book called Political Ideology by Robert Lane. Unfortunately, it is no longer part of the canon. I only read it by mistake. My department gave me an outdated reading list to study from, and I read it before the error was corrected. I'm glad I did. It is a fascinating read, not so much for its conclusions, but for its methodology. Lane engaged in detailed, dialectical conversations with a group of fifteen men from "Eastport, USA." His study was certainly not wide, but it was very deep.
For better or worse, public opinion researchers have not embraced Lane's method. Today, research is dependent upon survey data. Academics develop abstract theories of how voters think, and test them via these surveys. While some academics interact with their subjects, this is by no means required for publication. The same goes for analysts outside the academy. Extended, dialectical conversations are not required for opining on the average voter. Instead, the latest readings from Gallup are.
There are good reasons to go with the public opinion survey over Lane's methodology. If I were only going to select one method, I'd select the former without thinking twice. Lane's methodology is simply too subjective. However, the objectivity of the survey comes at a great cost - namely, distance from our subjects. This distance gives the answers to the survey questions ambiguity, and thus an opportunity for subjectivity to weasel its way back in. Ideally, both methods should be employed. The public opinion survey, with its objective and quantifiable answers to specific questions, should be supplemented with extensive conversations with our subjects.
Practically speaking, this kind of methodological pluralism rarely happens - though there are exceptions. Instead, most researchers rely exclusively on the polls. This is a very unfortunate development. It is particularly debilitating when it comes to understanding Obama and Appalachian whites. As should be clear from the discussion of "latent racism" and the "Bradley Effect," polls are particularly unhelpful here. Race is a hard topic to explore from thirty thousand feet, which is essentially what the polls do.
What we need, then, is somebody like Robert Lane. We need an expert who is up-to-date on the latest scholarly research, and who has spent time soaking-and-poking in places like Fayette County to see whether people there are willing to vote for Obama. As far as I know, there is no such expert.
And so, we have no answers, just questions.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Self-Inflicted Confusion
April 25, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
By PAUL KRUGMAN
After Barack Obama’s defeat in Pennsylvania, David Axelrod, his campaign manager, brushed it off: “Nothing has changed tonight in the basic physics of this race.”
He may well be right — but what a comedown. A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it’s talking about math. “Yes we can” has become “No she can’t.”
This wasn’t the way things were supposed to play out.
Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.
Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.
As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.
What’s gone wrong?
According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.
But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security.
It wasn’t. The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?
Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.
From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.
Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.
Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.
During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run — but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.
No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.
The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?
That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.
They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.
But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.
And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there’s a very good chance that they’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall.
David Brooks is off today.
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
By PAUL KRUGMAN
After Barack Obama’s defeat in Pennsylvania, David Axelrod, his campaign manager, brushed it off: “Nothing has changed tonight in the basic physics of this race.”
He may well be right — but what a comedown. A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it’s talking about math. “Yes we can” has become “No she can’t.”
This wasn’t the way things were supposed to play out.
Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.
Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.
As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.
What’s gone wrong?
According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.
But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security.
It wasn’t. The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?
Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.
From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.
Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.
Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.
During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run — but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.
No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.
The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?
That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.
They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.
But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.
And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there’s a very good chance that they’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall.
David Brooks is off today.
Democrats' dilemma
Print
Email
Bookmark
RSS
Comments
We Americans have serious doubts about OBAMA. It has nothing to do with his race.
His intentions are unclear, but his affiliations are clear. Being surrounded with people like the violent Ayers, or the Hiteresque Wright, or his American hating wife Michelle, or his Kenyan half brother Islamic Jihad terrorist Abongo ?Roy? Obama, or his Jewish/Israeli hating best friend Rashid Khalidi, or his close advisor Robert Malley who advocates supporting and helping the terrorist group Hamas, or Mr. McPeaks, Obama?s military advisor who open believes American Jews are the "problem." and ?Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel,? or Obama?s super delegate and major long term supporter Senator Meeks who openly hates and distrust all whites and gays or Obama?s most dangerous affiliation to Mr. Auchi who was Saddam Hussein right hand man and made billions in Iraq and has been a important supporter and behind the scene man throughout Obama?s rise to power. In Pennsylvania the residents were bombarded with arrogant phone calls from the Obama campaign. His campaign exudes negativity, not the Clinton campaign. It is not time for Clinton to GO. Without her in the race we would never have learned about Obama's many questionable associates. Your blatant support for Obama is sickening. The American people are tired of having him jammed down our throats by the media. Had he been vetted properly months ago he would not have won alot of those primaries. He DOES NOT represent Middle America !!
Posted by: junglejim123
4/24/2008 11:21 AM
3979.8 Report as Violation
Avg 5.00, 1 vote
1
2
Bookmark
RSS
Comments
We Americans have serious doubts about OBAMA. It has nothing to do with his race.
His intentions are unclear, but his affiliations are clear. Being surrounded with people like the violent Ayers, or the Hiteresque Wright, or his American hating wife Michelle, or his Kenyan half brother Islamic Jihad terrorist Abongo ?Roy? Obama, or his Jewish/Israeli hating best friend Rashid Khalidi, or his close advisor Robert Malley who advocates supporting and helping the terrorist group Hamas, or Mr. McPeaks, Obama?s military advisor who open believes American Jews are the "problem." and ?Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel,? or Obama?s super delegate and major long term supporter Senator Meeks who openly hates and distrust all whites and gays or Obama?s most dangerous affiliation to Mr. Auchi who was Saddam Hussein right hand man and made billions in Iraq and has been a important supporter and behind the scene man throughout Obama?s rise to power. In Pennsylvania the residents were bombarded with arrogant phone calls from the Obama campaign. His campaign exudes negativity, not the Clinton campaign. It is not time for Clinton to GO. Without her in the race we would never have learned about Obama's many questionable associates. Your blatant support for Obama is sickening. The American people are tired of having him jammed down our throats by the media. Had he been vetted properly months ago he would not have won alot of those primaries. He DOES NOT represent Middle America !!
Posted by: junglejim123
4/24/2008 11:21 AM
3979.8 Report as Violation
Avg 5.00, 1 vote
1
2
Pennsylvania Results Mean Clinton Could Win the Popular Vote
and Obama the Pledged Delegate Count
U.S News
April 23, 2008 03:09 PM ET Michael Barone Permanent Link
Finally, six weeks after the last primary, Pennsylvania has voted. Polls taken just before the race showed Hillary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama by 49.5 percent to 43.4 percent. The actual vote was 55 percent to 45 percent with Clinton winning (official county results here).
Some interesting patterns here. As I noted in a previous blog post, Obama carries blacks, academics, and state capitals—and not much else. He carried seven of Pennsylvania's 67 counties: Philadelphia County (44 percent black in 2000, by 65 percent to 35 percent), Delaware County (suburban Philadelphia, 15 percent black in 2000 and probably higher today, by 55 percent to 45 percent), Chester County (historically Republican, affluent suburban and exurban, by 55 percent to 45 percent), Lancaster County (heavily Republican, Pennsylvania Dutch country and exurban, by 64 percent to 36 percent), Dauphin County (state capital, 18 percent black in 2000, second-highest percentage in state, by 58 percent to 42 percent), Union County (Bucknell University, by 52 percent to 48 percent), and Centre County (Penn State University, by 60 percent to 40 percent).
More From U.S. News
Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern
Clinton's Pennsylvania Victory Exposes Vulnerabilities for Her and Obama
The U.N. on the State of Climate Change
Fuel Efficiency Plan Aims for Big Savings
And, as I noted in the same column, Clinton carries Jacksonians—the descendants of those Scots-Irish, Scots Lowlanders, and northern Englishmen who settled the Appalachian chain starting in Pennsylvania in the 18th century and heading southwest, ultimately to Texas, in the 19th. Clinton won 70 percent or more of the vote in 15 counties in the mountains, including the old anthracite country in the east and the bituminous coal country in the west. She won 74 percent in Lackawanna County (Scranton), the home base of Sen. Bob Casey, who endorsed Obama, and she won 79 percent in Fayette County (Monongahela Valley south of Pittsburgh). The latter is on the border of West Virginia, and the results here, as well as in earlier primaries in Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia counties adjacent to West Virginia, suggest that Clinton will win more than 70 percent of the vote in the primary there May 13. Sean Oxendine's excellent map makes this point graphically.
Here's another graphic from blogger Soren Dayton showing the black percentage by census tract in Philadelphia and the voting results by ward there. There's obviously a huge correlation between race and voting, with heavily white wards casting big margins against Obama. Note also that the most heavily Hispanic wards voted heavily for Clinton: ward 7 (70 percent to 30 percent) and ward 19 (65 percent to 35 percent). Hispanic voters may have contributed to Clinton's 60 percent in Lehigh County (Allentown) and 58 percent in Berks County (Reading); those counties were 10 percent Hispanic in 2000, the highest percentages in the state. As I noted in a previous blog post, Latinos, like Jacksonians, have proved a heavily pro-Clinton (anti-Obama?) constituency.
Is Pennsylvania a game-changer, as some Clinton backers proclaim? On the one hand, you could argue that it is just a duplication of the result in Ohio. In my March 28 post projecting the results in a way optimistic to Clinton, I projected a 60 percent to 40 percent margin for her in Pennsylvania and only a 55 percent to 45 percent margin for Obama in North Carolina. Now we know that Clinton's margin in Pennsylvania was only 55 percent to 45 percent, while recent polls show Obama with 59 percent of the two-candidate vote in North Carolina. Moreover, polling in the other May 6 state, Indiana, shows Clinton with nothing like the 60 percent to 40 percent lead I projected there (though the firms showing Obama ahead are unknown to me, so I am not convinced of their results).
My March 28 projections showed Clinton ending up, after the June 3 contests, with fewer pledged delegates (elected in primaries and caucuses) than Obama but more popular votes—whether or not you include the Florida and Michigan primary results (which the Democratic National Committee has ruled don't count because they were too early) and whether or not you include the imputed totals for the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses (where the state Democratic parties provided no count of those who participated). In Pennsylvania, Clinton fell short of the trajectory that would take her there.
Even so, Clinton now leads in the popular vote, if you include the Florida and Michigan results, by 121,943 votes. And even if you include the imputed totals for the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses, she's ahead by 11,721 votes. It seems to me that this provides the Clinton campaign with an important talking point, though one they're probably reluctant to use over the next two weeks. Reluctant, because the likely Obama victory in North Carolina could erase this popular-vote lead, and) an offsetting Clinton margin in Indiana seems unlikely (or at least risky to project from current polling). But looking ahead from May 6, Clinton is likely to regain that popular-vote lead (including Florida and Michigan) and quite possibly could gain a popular-vote lead counting just Florida and not the more problematic (because Obama was not on the ballot there) Michigan. She'll get big margins in West Virginia on May 13 and Kentucky on May 20, and it's not clear Obama will get a big margin in Oregon on May 20; Obama won the nonbinding February 19 primary in Washington only narrowly. If Clinton wins big in Puerto Rico on June 1, as the one poll I've seen there suggests, that will far outshadow in popular votes any Obama margins in South Dakota and Montana on June 3.
The Obama campaign has had much success selling the press and some superdelegates on the notion that the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates has some moral entitlement to superdelegates' votes. The idea is that the unelected superdelegates should not overturn the verdict of the elected pledged delegates. But I think there are serious arguments against as well as for this proposition. The superdelegates themselves were elected, and to positions that everyone knew carried an entitlement to be a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. A minority of them are elected public officials; most are state party chairmen and members of the Democratic National Committee. You can argue that the party officials were chosen by only a relatively few party insiders, but that's arguably true of pledged delegates selected in caucuses as well. In both cases, everyone knew or could have known the rules, and those who chose to participate had influence over the outcome, while those who didn't, didn't.
As it happens, something like three quarters of Obama's current advantage in pledged delegates comes from delegates elected in caucuses. The Clinton people might argue that these aren't as legitimate as delegates selected in primaries because they were chosen by so few people (perhaps 1.5 million as against 30-some million in primaries). But the Obama people have a perfectly good reply when they say that the Clinton people knew the rules and that if they didn't play competently, the side that did shouldn't be penalized. The problem is, the same argument could be deployed in favor of superdelegates' supporting Clinton. The Obama people could have lobbied these superdelegates better or, back when they were selected, acted to choose different superdelegates more amenable to Obama.
It seems to me that Clinton's current popular-vote lead (with Florida and Michigan) and her likely post-June 3 popular-vote lead (with Florida and Michigan) and possible post-June 3 popular-vote lead (with Florida but not Michigan) give her a talking point with superdelegates. The talking point is that she is the choice of the people. The Obama side can respond, plausibly, by saying that caucus wins produce only small popular-vote margins (or imputed popular-vote margins, as in Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine) and that if those states had primaries, they would have produced bigger Obama margins. To which the Clinton people can reply that Obama has consistently done better in caucuses than in primaries (as in Texas, where he lost the primary and won the caucus) and that his percentages in caucus states if they had held primaries would have been smaller and that in some such cases he would have lost caucus states if they had held primaries. The Obama side can also say that Florida and Michigan shouldn't be counted, because they were held too early and because Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. But real people did vote there, and in Michigan prominent Obama supporters urged people to vote for "uncommitted," which got a respectable 40 percent of the vote, to Clinton's 55 percent. And then you can get into arguments about the imputed vote in the four caucus states.
The important thing here is that all, or almost all, these arguments, on both sides, are plausible. Reasonable people can advance and believe them. And supporters of the two candidates will, reasonably, advance the reasonable arguments that serve their cause. There is no entirely value-neutral basis, no one moral yardstick, to determine which set of arguments is the more legitimate. Reasonable people will disagree, as they call on the superdelegates to make their decisions.
My sense is that the superdelegates don't want to make their own decisions; they want to ratify someone else's decision. This was underscored when I watched North Carolina Rep. Brad Miller being interviewed on the Fox News election program last night. Miller has a district with a large black percentage and with white-majority rural counties. His black constituents are probably numerous enough to carry the district for Obama; his white constituents will probably vote heavily for Clinton. And he, to paraphrase an old joke, is always with his constituents. He wants to ratify, not decide. The problem is that the results are sending us to a situation in which superdelegates have to decide which decisions they will ratify.
The Pennsylvania primary seems to be sending us to a situation in which Obama will clearly have the most pledged delegates and Clinton will be able to claim that she has the most popular votes. Play by the rules! Count every vote! We will hear the same cries we heard in the struggle for Florida's electoral votes in November and December 2000. The news media are trying to keep careful count of the superdelegates' preferences. Which leads me to ask this question: How would you like to be the superdelegate who casts, or is presented by the media as casting, the decisive vote? The vote that will determine whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The vote that will determine whether you are overriding the delegates elected by the people or whether you are overriding the people who have cast the votes. The vote that will determine whether the party rejects the first black with a serious chance to be elected president or the party rejects the first woman with a serious chance to be elected president.
Even to be part of a large group of superdelegates that is seen to have cast the decisive votes is to be in a position of political peril and the focus of furious discord. To be the single superdelegate seen as casting the decisive vote is to be in the position of the senator who cast the single decisive vote against the conviction and removal from office of President Andrew Johnson. He was not heard from again until John Kennedy wrote (or had ghostwritten for him) Profiles in Courage 87 years later. Which superdelegate wants to volunteer for that position or find himself or herself in it after a game of political musical chairs?
U.S News
April 23, 2008 03:09 PM ET Michael Barone Permanent Link
Finally, six weeks after the last primary, Pennsylvania has voted. Polls taken just before the race showed Hillary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama by 49.5 percent to 43.4 percent. The actual vote was 55 percent to 45 percent with Clinton winning (official county results here).
Some interesting patterns here. As I noted in a previous blog post, Obama carries blacks, academics, and state capitals—and not much else. He carried seven of Pennsylvania's 67 counties: Philadelphia County (44 percent black in 2000, by 65 percent to 35 percent), Delaware County (suburban Philadelphia, 15 percent black in 2000 and probably higher today, by 55 percent to 45 percent), Chester County (historically Republican, affluent suburban and exurban, by 55 percent to 45 percent), Lancaster County (heavily Republican, Pennsylvania Dutch country and exurban, by 64 percent to 36 percent), Dauphin County (state capital, 18 percent black in 2000, second-highest percentage in state, by 58 percent to 42 percent), Union County (Bucknell University, by 52 percent to 48 percent), and Centre County (Penn State University, by 60 percent to 40 percent).
More From U.S. News
Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern
Clinton's Pennsylvania Victory Exposes Vulnerabilities for Her and Obama
The U.N. on the State of Climate Change
Fuel Efficiency Plan Aims for Big Savings
And, as I noted in the same column, Clinton carries Jacksonians—the descendants of those Scots-Irish, Scots Lowlanders, and northern Englishmen who settled the Appalachian chain starting in Pennsylvania in the 18th century and heading southwest, ultimately to Texas, in the 19th. Clinton won 70 percent or more of the vote in 15 counties in the mountains, including the old anthracite country in the east and the bituminous coal country in the west. She won 74 percent in Lackawanna County (Scranton), the home base of Sen. Bob Casey, who endorsed Obama, and she won 79 percent in Fayette County (Monongahela Valley south of Pittsburgh). The latter is on the border of West Virginia, and the results here, as well as in earlier primaries in Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia counties adjacent to West Virginia, suggest that Clinton will win more than 70 percent of the vote in the primary there May 13. Sean Oxendine's excellent map makes this point graphically.
Here's another graphic from blogger Soren Dayton showing the black percentage by census tract in Philadelphia and the voting results by ward there. There's obviously a huge correlation between race and voting, with heavily white wards casting big margins against Obama. Note also that the most heavily Hispanic wards voted heavily for Clinton: ward 7 (70 percent to 30 percent) and ward 19 (65 percent to 35 percent). Hispanic voters may have contributed to Clinton's 60 percent in Lehigh County (Allentown) and 58 percent in Berks County (Reading); those counties were 10 percent Hispanic in 2000, the highest percentages in the state. As I noted in a previous blog post, Latinos, like Jacksonians, have proved a heavily pro-Clinton (anti-Obama?) constituency.
Is Pennsylvania a game-changer, as some Clinton backers proclaim? On the one hand, you could argue that it is just a duplication of the result in Ohio. In my March 28 post projecting the results in a way optimistic to Clinton, I projected a 60 percent to 40 percent margin for her in Pennsylvania and only a 55 percent to 45 percent margin for Obama in North Carolina. Now we know that Clinton's margin in Pennsylvania was only 55 percent to 45 percent, while recent polls show Obama with 59 percent of the two-candidate vote in North Carolina. Moreover, polling in the other May 6 state, Indiana, shows Clinton with nothing like the 60 percent to 40 percent lead I projected there (though the firms showing Obama ahead are unknown to me, so I am not convinced of their results).
My March 28 projections showed Clinton ending up, after the June 3 contests, with fewer pledged delegates (elected in primaries and caucuses) than Obama but more popular votes—whether or not you include the Florida and Michigan primary results (which the Democratic National Committee has ruled don't count because they were too early) and whether or not you include the imputed totals for the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses (where the state Democratic parties provided no count of those who participated). In Pennsylvania, Clinton fell short of the trajectory that would take her there.
Even so, Clinton now leads in the popular vote, if you include the Florida and Michigan results, by 121,943 votes. And even if you include the imputed totals for the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses, she's ahead by 11,721 votes. It seems to me that this provides the Clinton campaign with an important talking point, though one they're probably reluctant to use over the next two weeks. Reluctant, because the likely Obama victory in North Carolina could erase this popular-vote lead, and) an offsetting Clinton margin in Indiana seems unlikely (or at least risky to project from current polling). But looking ahead from May 6, Clinton is likely to regain that popular-vote lead (including Florida and Michigan) and quite possibly could gain a popular-vote lead counting just Florida and not the more problematic (because Obama was not on the ballot there) Michigan. She'll get big margins in West Virginia on May 13 and Kentucky on May 20, and it's not clear Obama will get a big margin in Oregon on May 20; Obama won the nonbinding February 19 primary in Washington only narrowly. If Clinton wins big in Puerto Rico on June 1, as the one poll I've seen there suggests, that will far outshadow in popular votes any Obama margins in South Dakota and Montana on June 3.
The Obama campaign has had much success selling the press and some superdelegates on the notion that the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates has some moral entitlement to superdelegates' votes. The idea is that the unelected superdelegates should not overturn the verdict of the elected pledged delegates. But I think there are serious arguments against as well as for this proposition. The superdelegates themselves were elected, and to positions that everyone knew carried an entitlement to be a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. A minority of them are elected public officials; most are state party chairmen and members of the Democratic National Committee. You can argue that the party officials were chosen by only a relatively few party insiders, but that's arguably true of pledged delegates selected in caucuses as well. In both cases, everyone knew or could have known the rules, and those who chose to participate had influence over the outcome, while those who didn't, didn't.
As it happens, something like three quarters of Obama's current advantage in pledged delegates comes from delegates elected in caucuses. The Clinton people might argue that these aren't as legitimate as delegates selected in primaries because they were chosen by so few people (perhaps 1.5 million as against 30-some million in primaries). But the Obama people have a perfectly good reply when they say that the Clinton people knew the rules and that if they didn't play competently, the side that did shouldn't be penalized. The problem is, the same argument could be deployed in favor of superdelegates' supporting Clinton. The Obama people could have lobbied these superdelegates better or, back when they were selected, acted to choose different superdelegates more amenable to Obama.
It seems to me that Clinton's current popular-vote lead (with Florida and Michigan) and her likely post-June 3 popular-vote lead (with Florida and Michigan) and possible post-June 3 popular-vote lead (with Florida but not Michigan) give her a talking point with superdelegates. The talking point is that she is the choice of the people. The Obama side can respond, plausibly, by saying that caucus wins produce only small popular-vote margins (or imputed popular-vote margins, as in Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine) and that if those states had primaries, they would have produced bigger Obama margins. To which the Clinton people can reply that Obama has consistently done better in caucuses than in primaries (as in Texas, where he lost the primary and won the caucus) and that his percentages in caucus states if they had held primaries would have been smaller and that in some such cases he would have lost caucus states if they had held primaries. The Obama side can also say that Florida and Michigan shouldn't be counted, because they were held too early and because Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. But real people did vote there, and in Michigan prominent Obama supporters urged people to vote for "uncommitted," which got a respectable 40 percent of the vote, to Clinton's 55 percent. And then you can get into arguments about the imputed vote in the four caucus states.
The important thing here is that all, or almost all, these arguments, on both sides, are plausible. Reasonable people can advance and believe them. And supporters of the two candidates will, reasonably, advance the reasonable arguments that serve their cause. There is no entirely value-neutral basis, no one moral yardstick, to determine which set of arguments is the more legitimate. Reasonable people will disagree, as they call on the superdelegates to make their decisions.
My sense is that the superdelegates don't want to make their own decisions; they want to ratify someone else's decision. This was underscored when I watched North Carolina Rep. Brad Miller being interviewed on the Fox News election program last night. Miller has a district with a large black percentage and with white-majority rural counties. His black constituents are probably numerous enough to carry the district for Obama; his white constituents will probably vote heavily for Clinton. And he, to paraphrase an old joke, is always with his constituents. He wants to ratify, not decide. The problem is that the results are sending us to a situation in which superdelegates have to decide which decisions they will ratify.
The Pennsylvania primary seems to be sending us to a situation in which Obama will clearly have the most pledged delegates and Clinton will be able to claim that she has the most popular votes. Play by the rules! Count every vote! We will hear the same cries we heard in the struggle for Florida's electoral votes in November and December 2000. The news media are trying to keep careful count of the superdelegates' preferences. Which leads me to ask this question: How would you like to be the superdelegate who casts, or is presented by the media as casting, the decisive vote? The vote that will determine whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The vote that will determine whether you are overriding the delegates elected by the people or whether you are overriding the people who have cast the votes. The vote that will determine whether the party rejects the first black with a serious chance to be elected president or the party rejects the first woman with a serious chance to be elected president.
Even to be part of a large group of superdelegates that is seen to have cast the decisive votes is to be in a position of political peril and the focus of furious discord. To be the single superdelegate seen as casting the decisive vote is to be in the position of the senator who cast the single decisive vote against the conviction and removal from office of President Andrew Johnson. He was not heard from again until John Kennedy wrote (or had ghostwritten for him) Profiles in Courage 87 years later. Which superdelegate wants to volunteer for that position or find himself or herself in it after a game of political musical chairs?
Pennsylvania Results Mean Clinton Could Win the Popular Vote
and Obama the Pledged Delegate Count
U.S News
April 23, 2008 03:09 PM ET Michael Barone Permanent Link
Finally, six weeks after the last primary, Pennsylvania has voted. Polls taken just before the race showed Hillary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama by 49.5 percent to 43.4 percent. The actual vote was 55 percent to 45 percent with Clinton winning (official county results here).
Some interesting patterns here. As I noted in a previous blog post, Obama carries blacks, academics, and state capitals—and not much else. He carried seven of Pennsylvania's 67 counties: Philadelphia County (44 percent black in 2000, by 65 percent to 35 percent), Delaware County (suburban Philadelphia, 15 percent black in 2000 and probably higher today, by 55 percent to 45 percent), Chester County (historically Republican, affluent suburban and exurban, by 55 percent to 45 percent), Lancaster County (heavily Republican, Pennsylvania Dutch country and exurban, by 64 percent to 36 percent), Dauphin County (state capital, 18 percent black in 2000, second-highest percentage in state, by 58 percent to 42 percent), Union County (Bucknell University, by 52 percent to 48 percent), and Centre County (Penn State University, by 60 percent to 40 percent).
More From U.S. News
Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern
Clinton's Pennsylvania Victory Exposes Vulnerabilities for Her and Obama
The U.N. on the State of Climate Change
Fuel Efficiency Plan Aims for Big Savings
And, as I noted in the same column, Clinton carries Jacksonians—the descendants of those Scots-Irish, Scots Lowlanders, and northern Englishmen who settled the Appalachian chain starting in Pennsylvania in the 18th century and heading southwest, ultimately to Texas, in the 19th. Clinton won 70 percent or more of the vote in 15 counties in the mountains, including the old anthracite country in the east and the bituminous coal country in the west. She won 74 percent in Lackawanna County (Scranton), the home base of Sen. Bob Casey, who endorsed Obama, and she won 79 percent in Fayette County (Monongahela Valley south of Pittsburgh). The latter is on the border of West Virginia, and the results here, as well as in earlier primaries in Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia counties adjacent to West Virginia, suggest that Clinton will win more than 70 percent of the vote in the primary there May 13. Sean Oxendine's excellent map makes this point graphically.
Here's another graphic from blogger Soren Dayton showing the black percentage by census tract in Philadelphia and the voting results by ward there. There's obviously a huge correlation between race and voting, with heavily white wards casting big margins against Obama. Note also that the most heavily Hispanic wards voted heavily for Clinton: ward 7 (70 percent to 30 percent) and ward 19 (65 percent to 35 percent). Hispanic voters may have contributed to Clinton's 60 percent in Lehigh County (Allentown) and 58 percent in Berks County (Reading); those counties were 10 percent Hispanic in 2000, the highest percentages in the state. As I noted in a previous blog post, Latinos, like Jacksonians, have proved a heavily pro-Clinton (anti-Obama?) constituency.
Is Pennsylvania a game-changer, as some Clinton backers proclaim? On the one hand, you could argue that it is just a duplication of the result in Ohio. In my March 28 post projecting the results in a way optimistic to Clinton, I projected a 60 percent to 40 percent margin for her in Pennsylvania and only a 55 percent to 45 percent margin for Obama in North Carolina. Now we know that Clinton's margin in Pennsylvania was only 55 percent to 45 percent, while recent polls show Obama with 59 percent of the two-candidate vote in North Carolina. Moreover, polling in the other May 6 state, Indiana, shows Clinton with nothing like the 60 percent to 40 percent lead I projected there (though the firms showing Obama ahead are unknown to me, so I am not convinced of their results).
My March 28 projections showed Clinton ending up, after the June 3 contests, with fewer pledged delegates (elected in primaries and caucuses) than Obama but more popular votes—whether or not you include the Florida and Michigan primary results (which the Democratic National Committee has ruled don't count because they were too early) and whether or not you include the imputed totals for the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses (where the state Democratic parties provided no count of those who participated). In Pennsylvania, Clinton fell short of the trajectory that would take her there.
Even so, Clinton now leads in the popular vote, if you include the Florida and Michigan results, by 121,943 votes. And even if you include the imputed totals for the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses, she's ahead by 11,721 votes. It seems to me that this provides the Clinton campaign with an important talking point, though one they're probably reluctant to use over the next two weeks. Reluctant, because the likely Obama victory in North Carolina could erase this popular-vote lead, and) an offsetting Clinton margin in Indiana seems unlikely (or at least risky to project from current polling). But looking ahead from May 6, Clinton is likely to regain that popular-vote lead (including Florida and Michigan) and quite possibly could gain a popular-vote lead counting just Florida and not the more problematic (because Obama was not on the ballot there) Michigan. She'll get big margins in West Virginia on May 13 and Kentucky on May 20, and it's not clear Obama will get a big margin in Oregon on May 20; Obama won the nonbinding February 19 primary in Washington only narrowly. If Clinton wins big in Puerto Rico on June 1, as the one poll I've seen there suggests, that will far outshadow in popular votes any Obama margins in South Dakota and Montana on June 3.
The Obama campaign has had much success selling the press and some superdelegates on the notion that the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates has some moral entitlement to superdelegates' votes. The idea is that the unelected superdelegates should not overturn the verdict of the elected pledged delegates. But I think there are serious arguments against as well as for this proposition. The superdelegates themselves were elected, and to positions that everyone knew carried an entitlement to be a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. A minority of them are elected public officials; most are state party chairmen and members of the Democratic National Committee. You can argue that the party officials were chosen by only a relatively few party insiders, but that's arguably true of pledged delegates selected in caucuses as well. In both cases, everyone knew or could have known the rules, and those who chose to participate had influence over the outcome, while those who didn't, didn't.
As it happens, something like three quarters of Obama's current advantage in pledged delegates comes from delegates elected in caucuses. The Clinton people might argue that these aren't as legitimate as delegates selected in primaries because they were chosen by so few people (perhaps 1.5 million as against 30-some million in primaries). But the Obama people have a perfectly good reply when they say that the Clinton people knew the rules and that if they didn't play competently, the side that did shouldn't be penalized. The problem is, the same argument could be deployed in favor of superdelegates' supporting Clinton. The Obama people could have lobbied these superdelegates better or, back when they were selected, acted to choose different superdelegates more amenable to Obama.
It seems to me that Clinton's current popular-vote lead (with Florida and Michigan) and her likely post-June 3 popular-vote lead (with Florida and Michigan) and possible post-June 3 popular-vote lead (with Florida but not Michigan) give her a talking point with superdelegates. The talking point is that she is the choice of the people. The Obama side can respond, plausibly, by saying that caucus wins produce only small popular-vote margins (or imputed popular-vote margins, as in Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine) and that if those states had primaries, they would have produced bigger Obama margins. To which the Clinton people can reply that Obama has consistently done better in caucuses than in primaries (as in Texas, where he lost the primary and won the caucus) and that his percentages in caucus states if they had held primaries would have been smaller and that in some such cases he would have lost caucus states if they had held primaries. The Obama side can also say that Florida and Michigan shouldn't be counted, because they were held too early and because Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. But real people did vote there, and in Michigan prominent Obama supporters urged people to vote for "uncommitted," which got a respectable 40 percent of the vote, to Clinton's 55 percent. And then you can get into arguments about the imputed vote in the four caucus states.
The important thing here is that all, or almost all, these arguments, on both sides, are plausible. Reasonable people can advance and believe them. And supporters of the two candidates will, reasonably, advance the reasonable arguments that serve their cause. There is no entirely value-neutral basis, no one moral yardstick, to determine which set of arguments is the more legitimate. Reasonable people will disagree, as they call on the superdelegates to make their decisions.
My sense is that the superdelegates don't want to make their own decisions; they want to ratify someone else's decision. This was underscored when I watched North Carolina Rep. Brad Miller being interviewed on the Fox News election program last night. Miller has a district with a large black percentage and with white-majority rural counties. His black constituents are probably numerous enough to carry the district for Obama; his white constituents will probably vote heavily for Clinton. And he, to paraphrase an old joke, is always with his constituents. He wants to ratify, not decide. The problem is that the results are sending us to a situation in which superdelegates have to decide which decisions they will ratify.
The Pennsylvania primary seems to be sending us to a situation in which Obama will clearly have the most pledged delegates and Clinton will be able to claim that she has the most popular votes. Play by the rules! Count every vote! We will hear the same cries we heard in the struggle for Florida's electoral votes in November and December 2000. The news media are trying to keep careful count of the superdelegates' preferences. Which leads me to ask this question: How would you like to be the superdelegate who casts, or is presented by the media as casting, the decisive vote? The vote that will determine whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The vote that will determine whether you are overriding the delegates elected by the people or whether you are overriding the people who have cast the votes. The vote that will determine whether the party rejects the first black with a serious chance to be elected president or the party rejects the first woman with a serious chance to be elected president.
Even to be part of a large group of superdelegates that is seen to have cast the decisive votes is to be in a position of political peril and the focus of furious discord. To be the single superdelegate seen as casting the decisive vote is to be in the position of the senator who cast the single decisive vote against the conviction and removal from office of President Andrew Johnson. He was not heard from again until John Kennedy wrote (or had ghostwritten for him) Profiles in Courage 87 years later. Which superdelegate wants to volunteer for that position or find himself or herself in it after a game of political musical chairs?
U.S News
April 23, 2008 03:09 PM ET Michael Barone Permanent Link
Finally, six weeks after the last primary, Pennsylvania has voted. Polls taken just before the race showed Hillary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama by 49.5 percent to 43.4 percent. The actual vote was 55 percent to 45 percent with Clinton winning (official county results here).
Some interesting patterns here. As I noted in a previous blog post, Obama carries blacks, academics, and state capitals—and not much else. He carried seven of Pennsylvania's 67 counties: Philadelphia County (44 percent black in 2000, by 65 percent to 35 percent), Delaware County (suburban Philadelphia, 15 percent black in 2000 and probably higher today, by 55 percent to 45 percent), Chester County (historically Republican, affluent suburban and exurban, by 55 percent to 45 percent), Lancaster County (heavily Republican, Pennsylvania Dutch country and exurban, by 64 percent to 36 percent), Dauphin County (state capital, 18 percent black in 2000, second-highest percentage in state, by 58 percent to 42 percent), Union County (Bucknell University, by 52 percent to 48 percent), and Centre County (Penn State University, by 60 percent to 40 percent).
More From U.S. News
Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern
Clinton's Pennsylvania Victory Exposes Vulnerabilities for Her and Obama
The U.N. on the State of Climate Change
Fuel Efficiency Plan Aims for Big Savings
And, as I noted in the same column, Clinton carries Jacksonians—the descendants of those Scots-Irish, Scots Lowlanders, and northern Englishmen who settled the Appalachian chain starting in Pennsylvania in the 18th century and heading southwest, ultimately to Texas, in the 19th. Clinton won 70 percent or more of the vote in 15 counties in the mountains, including the old anthracite country in the east and the bituminous coal country in the west. She won 74 percent in Lackawanna County (Scranton), the home base of Sen. Bob Casey, who endorsed Obama, and she won 79 percent in Fayette County (Monongahela Valley south of Pittsburgh). The latter is on the border of West Virginia, and the results here, as well as in earlier primaries in Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia counties adjacent to West Virginia, suggest that Clinton will win more than 70 percent of the vote in the primary there May 13. Sean Oxendine's excellent map makes this point graphically.
Here's another graphic from blogger Soren Dayton showing the black percentage by census tract in Philadelphia and the voting results by ward there. There's obviously a huge correlation between race and voting, with heavily white wards casting big margins against Obama. Note also that the most heavily Hispanic wards voted heavily for Clinton: ward 7 (70 percent to 30 percent) and ward 19 (65 percent to 35 percent). Hispanic voters may have contributed to Clinton's 60 percent in Lehigh County (Allentown) and 58 percent in Berks County (Reading); those counties were 10 percent Hispanic in 2000, the highest percentages in the state. As I noted in a previous blog post, Latinos, like Jacksonians, have proved a heavily pro-Clinton (anti-Obama?) constituency.
Is Pennsylvania a game-changer, as some Clinton backers proclaim? On the one hand, you could argue that it is just a duplication of the result in Ohio. In my March 28 post projecting the results in a way optimistic to Clinton, I projected a 60 percent to 40 percent margin for her in Pennsylvania and only a 55 percent to 45 percent margin for Obama in North Carolina. Now we know that Clinton's margin in Pennsylvania was only 55 percent to 45 percent, while recent polls show Obama with 59 percent of the two-candidate vote in North Carolina. Moreover, polling in the other May 6 state, Indiana, shows Clinton with nothing like the 60 percent to 40 percent lead I projected there (though the firms showing Obama ahead are unknown to me, so I am not convinced of their results).
My March 28 projections showed Clinton ending up, after the June 3 contests, with fewer pledged delegates (elected in primaries and caucuses) than Obama but more popular votes—whether or not you include the Florida and Michigan primary results (which the Democratic National Committee has ruled don't count because they were too early) and whether or not you include the imputed totals for the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses (where the state Democratic parties provided no count of those who participated). In Pennsylvania, Clinton fell short of the trajectory that would take her there.
Even so, Clinton now leads in the popular vote, if you include the Florida and Michigan results, by 121,943 votes. And even if you include the imputed totals for the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses, she's ahead by 11,721 votes. It seems to me that this provides the Clinton campaign with an important talking point, though one they're probably reluctant to use over the next two weeks. Reluctant, because the likely Obama victory in North Carolina could erase this popular-vote lead, and) an offsetting Clinton margin in Indiana seems unlikely (or at least risky to project from current polling). But looking ahead from May 6, Clinton is likely to regain that popular-vote lead (including Florida and Michigan) and quite possibly could gain a popular-vote lead counting just Florida and not the more problematic (because Obama was not on the ballot there) Michigan. She'll get big margins in West Virginia on May 13 and Kentucky on May 20, and it's not clear Obama will get a big margin in Oregon on May 20; Obama won the nonbinding February 19 primary in Washington only narrowly. If Clinton wins big in Puerto Rico on June 1, as the one poll I've seen there suggests, that will far outshadow in popular votes any Obama margins in South Dakota and Montana on June 3.
The Obama campaign has had much success selling the press and some superdelegates on the notion that the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates has some moral entitlement to superdelegates' votes. The idea is that the unelected superdelegates should not overturn the verdict of the elected pledged delegates. But I think there are serious arguments against as well as for this proposition. The superdelegates themselves were elected, and to positions that everyone knew carried an entitlement to be a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. A minority of them are elected public officials; most are state party chairmen and members of the Democratic National Committee. You can argue that the party officials were chosen by only a relatively few party insiders, but that's arguably true of pledged delegates selected in caucuses as well. In both cases, everyone knew or could have known the rules, and those who chose to participate had influence over the outcome, while those who didn't, didn't.
As it happens, something like three quarters of Obama's current advantage in pledged delegates comes from delegates elected in caucuses. The Clinton people might argue that these aren't as legitimate as delegates selected in primaries because they were chosen by so few people (perhaps 1.5 million as against 30-some million in primaries). But the Obama people have a perfectly good reply when they say that the Clinton people knew the rules and that if they didn't play competently, the side that did shouldn't be penalized. The problem is, the same argument could be deployed in favor of superdelegates' supporting Clinton. The Obama people could have lobbied these superdelegates better or, back when they were selected, acted to choose different superdelegates more amenable to Obama.
It seems to me that Clinton's current popular-vote lead (with Florida and Michigan) and her likely post-June 3 popular-vote lead (with Florida and Michigan) and possible post-June 3 popular-vote lead (with Florida but not Michigan) give her a talking point with superdelegates. The talking point is that she is the choice of the people. The Obama side can respond, plausibly, by saying that caucus wins produce only small popular-vote margins (or imputed popular-vote margins, as in Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine) and that if those states had primaries, they would have produced bigger Obama margins. To which the Clinton people can reply that Obama has consistently done better in caucuses than in primaries (as in Texas, where he lost the primary and won the caucus) and that his percentages in caucus states if they had held primaries would have been smaller and that in some such cases he would have lost caucus states if they had held primaries. The Obama side can also say that Florida and Michigan shouldn't be counted, because they were held too early and because Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. But real people did vote there, and in Michigan prominent Obama supporters urged people to vote for "uncommitted," which got a respectable 40 percent of the vote, to Clinton's 55 percent. And then you can get into arguments about the imputed vote in the four caucus states.
The important thing here is that all, or almost all, these arguments, on both sides, are plausible. Reasonable people can advance and believe them. And supporters of the two candidates will, reasonably, advance the reasonable arguments that serve their cause. There is no entirely value-neutral basis, no one moral yardstick, to determine which set of arguments is the more legitimate. Reasonable people will disagree, as they call on the superdelegates to make their decisions.
My sense is that the superdelegates don't want to make their own decisions; they want to ratify someone else's decision. This was underscored when I watched North Carolina Rep. Brad Miller being interviewed on the Fox News election program last night. Miller has a district with a large black percentage and with white-majority rural counties. His black constituents are probably numerous enough to carry the district for Obama; his white constituents will probably vote heavily for Clinton. And he, to paraphrase an old joke, is always with his constituents. He wants to ratify, not decide. The problem is that the results are sending us to a situation in which superdelegates have to decide which decisions they will ratify.
The Pennsylvania primary seems to be sending us to a situation in which Obama will clearly have the most pledged delegates and Clinton will be able to claim that she has the most popular votes. Play by the rules! Count every vote! We will hear the same cries we heard in the struggle for Florida's electoral votes in November and December 2000. The news media are trying to keep careful count of the superdelegates' preferences. Which leads me to ask this question: How would you like to be the superdelegate who casts, or is presented by the media as casting, the decisive vote? The vote that will determine whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The vote that will determine whether you are overriding the delegates elected by the people or whether you are overriding the people who have cast the votes. The vote that will determine whether the party rejects the first black with a serious chance to be elected president or the party rejects the first woman with a serious chance to be elected president.
Even to be part of a large group of superdelegates that is seen to have cast the decisive votes is to be in a position of political peril and the focus of furious discord. To be the single superdelegate seen as casting the decisive vote is to be in the position of the senator who cast the single decisive vote against the conviction and removal from office of President Andrew Johnson. He was not heard from again until John Kennedy wrote (or had ghostwritten for him) Profiles in Courage 87 years later. Which superdelegate wants to volunteer for that position or find himself or herself in it after a game of political musical chairs?
The Incredibly Shrinking Democrats
Thursday, Apr. 24, 2008
TIME
By Joe Klein
"This election," Bill Clinton said in the hours before the Pennsylvania primary, "is too big to be small." It was a noble sentiment, succinctly stated, and the core of what Democrats believe — that George W. Bush has been a historic screwup as President, that there are huge issues to be confronted this year. But it was laughable as well. The Pennsylvania primary had been a six-week exercise in diminution, with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — and Bill Clinton too — losing altitude and esteem on an almost daily basis. Even as he spoke, the former President was in the midst of a tiny, self-inflicted absurdity, having claimed in a radio interview that the Obama campaign had played the "race card" against him. And that was the least of the damage.
Hillary Clinton won a convincing victory in Pennsylvania, but it came at a significant cost to the Clinton family's reputation and to the Democratic Party. She won by throwing the "kitchen sink" at Obama, as her campaign aides described it. Her campaign had been an assault on Obama's character flaws, real and imagined, rather than on matters of substance. Clinton also suffered a bizarre self-inflicted wound, having reimagined her peaceful landing at a Bosnian airstrip in 1996 as a battlefield scene complete with sniper fire. After six weeks of this, according to one poll, 60% of the American people considered her "untrustworthy," a Nixonian indictment.
But that was nothing compared with the damage done to Obama, who entered the primary as a fresh breeze and left it stale, battered and embittered — still the mathematical favorite for the nomination but no longer the darling of his party. In the course of six weeks, the American people learned that he was a member of a church whose pastor gave angry, anti-American sermons, that he was "friendly" with an American terrorist who had bombed buildings during the Vietnam era, and that he seemed to look on the ceremonies of working-class life — bowling, hunting, churchgoing and the fervent consumption of greasy food — as his anthropologist mother might have, with a mixture of cool detachment and utter bemusement. All of which deepened the skepticism that Caucasians, especially those without a college degree, had about a young, inexperienced African-American guy with an Islamic-sounding name and a highfalutin fluency with language. And worse, it raised questions among the elders of the party about Obama's ability to hold on to crucial Rust Belt bastions like Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Jersey in the general election — and to add long-suffering Ohio to the Democratic column.
Yes, yes, the bulk of the sludge was caricature, and some of it, especially the stuff circulating on the Internet, was scurrilous trash. But there is an immutable pedestrian reality to American politics: you have to get the social body language right if you want voters to consider the nobler reaches of your message. In his 1991 book, The Reasoning Voter, political scientist Samuel Popkin argued that most people make their choice on the basis of "low-information signaling" — that is, stupid things like whether you know how to roll a bowling ball or wear an American-flag pin. In the era of Republican dominance, the low-information signals were really low — how Michael Dukakis looked in a tanker's helmet, whether John Kerry's favorite sports were too precious (like wind-surfing), whether Al Gore's debate sighs over his opponent's simple obfuscations were patronizing. Bill Clinton was the lone Democratic master of low-information signaling — a love of McDonald's and other assorted big-gulp appetites gave him credibility that even trumped his evasion of military service.
The audacity of the Obama campaign was the belief that in a time of trouble — as opposed to the peace and prosperity of the late 20th century — the low-information politics of the past could be tossed aside in favor of a high-minded, if deliberately vague, appeal to the nation's need to finally address some huge problems. But that assumption hit a wall in Pennsylvania. Specifically, it hit a wall at the debate staged by ABC News in Philadelphia — viewed by an audience of 10 million, including a disproportionate number of Pennsylvanians — that will go down in history for the relentless vulgarity of its questions, with the first 40 minutes focused exclusively on so-called character issues rather than policy. Obama was on the defensive from the start, but gradually the defensiveness morphed into bitter frustration. He kept his cool — a very presidential character trait — and allowed his disdain to show only when he was asked a question about his opponent's Bosnia gaffe. "Senator Clinton deserves the right to make some errors once in a while," he said. "What's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history."
It is the transcendent irony of this campaign that Obama, who entered the race intent on getting past the "dorm fights of the '60s," has now become deeply entangled in them. Each of the ABC moderators' questions were about controversies that erupted in the '60s. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's black-nationalist sermons had their roots in the black-power movement that corrupted Martin Luther King Jr.'s "beloved community." The sprouting of flag pins on the lapels of politicians was a response to the flag-burning of antiwar protesters; the violence of Weather Underground members like William Ayers, with whom Obama was said to be "friendly," was a corruption of the peace movements as well. All of these occurred before Obama reached puberty — and they helped define the social atmosphere in academic communities like Chicago's Hyde Park, where Obama now lives. For 40 years, the Republican Party has feasted on the secular humanism, feminism, distrust of the military and permissiveness that caricature such communities. For 40 years, the Democratic Party has been burdened by its inability to break free of those stereotypes.
Obama's challenge to the primacy of that sort of politics is both worthy and essential. His point, and Bill Clinton's, is indisputable: there is a need for a big election this year. A decision has to be made about the war in Iraq. The mortgage-market and the health-insurance systems are falling apart. There is a drastic need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels for national-security, environmental and basic supply-and-demand reasons. The physical and educational infrastructures of the country are badly outdated. In order to have an election about those big challenges, we need to shove some serious social issues — like gun control and, yes, even abortion — and phony character issues to the periphery. But Obama is going about it the wrong way. "After 14 long months," he said in his concession speech, "it's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics, the bickering that none of us are immune to, and it trivializes the profound issues." What's wrong with that, you might ask? It's too abstract, too detached. Too often, Obama has seemed unwilling to get down in the muck and fight off the "distractions" that are crippling his campaign. Obviously, this is strategy — his appeal has been the promise of a politics of civility (and as a black man, he wants to send low-information signals that he is neither angry nor threatening). But what if, after ABC had enabled the smarmy American-flag-pin question from an "average citizen," Obama had taken on George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson directly, "Why aren't you guys wearing pins? Why isn't Hillary?" Indeed, this was Clinton's strategy in an earlier debate, upbraiding her questioners from MSNBC — and it may have turned the tide in her favor in Ohio and Texas.
In the last days of the Pennsylvania campaign, Obama made a halfhearted attempt to go negative. He ran ads distorting Clinton's health-care plan, claiming that it would force everyone to get health insurance (true), even if they couldn't afford it (false). He devoted more and more of his stump speech to slagging Clinton. "She's got the kitchen sink flying, the china flying — the buffet is coming at me," he said during a whistle-stop tour of southeastern Pennsylvania. His delivery of the kitchen-sink line was droll, but the rest of the tour was surprisingly soporific. He seemed fed up with campaigning — as any reasonably sane human being would be at this point — and embittered by the turn the race had taken.
I'm not sure that Bill and Hillary Clinton are reasonably sane human beings, at least not when they are running for office: they become robo-pols, tireless and seemingly indestructible. Senator Clinton was on fire in the days before the Pennsylvania primary, as energized as I've ever seen her. She barely mentioned Obama at all but fiercely plowed her latest field — the populist granddaughter of a Pennsylvania factory worker, the daughter of a Penn State football player. As she said in her victory speech, "You know, tonight, all across Pennsylvania and America, teachers are grading papers, and doctors and nurses are caring for the sick, and you deserve a leader who listens to you. Waitresses are pouring coffee, and police officers are standing guard, and small businesses are working to meet that payroll. And you deserve a champion who stands with you."
There was a warmth and a feistiness to Clinton in Pennsylvania — the very qualities that Obama was lacking. She had embraced the shameless rituals of politics, including some classic low-information signals, downing shots of Crown Royal and promising lower gas prices, attacking her opponent over trivia and threatening to "obliterate" Iran. It was enough to earn the ire of the New York Times editorial page, which harrumphed, "By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues ... she undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be President."
Well, tsk-tsk and ahem! But part of the problem with editorial writers — and, truth to tell, columnists like me — is a narrow definition of the qualifications necessary to be President. It helps to be a warrior, for one thing. It helps to be able to take a punch and deliver one — even, sometimes, a sucker punch. A certain familiarity with life as it is lived by normal Americans is useful; a distance from the élite precincts of academia, where unrepentant terrorists can sip wine in good company, is essential. Hillary Clinton has learned these lessons the hard way; Barack Obama thinks they are "the wrong lessons." The nomination is, obviously, his to lose. But the presidency will not be won if he doesn't learn that the only way to reach the high-minded conversation he wants, and the country badly needs, is to figure out how to maneuver his way through the gutter.
TIME
By Joe Klein
"This election," Bill Clinton said in the hours before the Pennsylvania primary, "is too big to be small." It was a noble sentiment, succinctly stated, and the core of what Democrats believe — that George W. Bush has been a historic screwup as President, that there are huge issues to be confronted this year. But it was laughable as well. The Pennsylvania primary had been a six-week exercise in diminution, with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — and Bill Clinton too — losing altitude and esteem on an almost daily basis. Even as he spoke, the former President was in the midst of a tiny, self-inflicted absurdity, having claimed in a radio interview that the Obama campaign had played the "race card" against him. And that was the least of the damage.
Hillary Clinton won a convincing victory in Pennsylvania, but it came at a significant cost to the Clinton family's reputation and to the Democratic Party. She won by throwing the "kitchen sink" at Obama, as her campaign aides described it. Her campaign had been an assault on Obama's character flaws, real and imagined, rather than on matters of substance. Clinton also suffered a bizarre self-inflicted wound, having reimagined her peaceful landing at a Bosnian airstrip in 1996 as a battlefield scene complete with sniper fire. After six weeks of this, according to one poll, 60% of the American people considered her "untrustworthy," a Nixonian indictment.
But that was nothing compared with the damage done to Obama, who entered the primary as a fresh breeze and left it stale, battered and embittered — still the mathematical favorite for the nomination but no longer the darling of his party. In the course of six weeks, the American people learned that he was a member of a church whose pastor gave angry, anti-American sermons, that he was "friendly" with an American terrorist who had bombed buildings during the Vietnam era, and that he seemed to look on the ceremonies of working-class life — bowling, hunting, churchgoing and the fervent consumption of greasy food — as his anthropologist mother might have, with a mixture of cool detachment and utter bemusement. All of which deepened the skepticism that Caucasians, especially those without a college degree, had about a young, inexperienced African-American guy with an Islamic-sounding name and a highfalutin fluency with language. And worse, it raised questions among the elders of the party about Obama's ability to hold on to crucial Rust Belt bastions like Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Jersey in the general election — and to add long-suffering Ohio to the Democratic column.
Yes, yes, the bulk of the sludge was caricature, and some of it, especially the stuff circulating on the Internet, was scurrilous trash. But there is an immutable pedestrian reality to American politics: you have to get the social body language right if you want voters to consider the nobler reaches of your message. In his 1991 book, The Reasoning Voter, political scientist Samuel Popkin argued that most people make their choice on the basis of "low-information signaling" — that is, stupid things like whether you know how to roll a bowling ball or wear an American-flag pin. In the era of Republican dominance, the low-information signals were really low — how Michael Dukakis looked in a tanker's helmet, whether John Kerry's favorite sports were too precious (like wind-surfing), whether Al Gore's debate sighs over his opponent's simple obfuscations were patronizing. Bill Clinton was the lone Democratic master of low-information signaling — a love of McDonald's and other assorted big-gulp appetites gave him credibility that even trumped his evasion of military service.
The audacity of the Obama campaign was the belief that in a time of trouble — as opposed to the peace and prosperity of the late 20th century — the low-information politics of the past could be tossed aside in favor of a high-minded, if deliberately vague, appeal to the nation's need to finally address some huge problems. But that assumption hit a wall in Pennsylvania. Specifically, it hit a wall at the debate staged by ABC News in Philadelphia — viewed by an audience of 10 million, including a disproportionate number of Pennsylvanians — that will go down in history for the relentless vulgarity of its questions, with the first 40 minutes focused exclusively on so-called character issues rather than policy. Obama was on the defensive from the start, but gradually the defensiveness morphed into bitter frustration. He kept his cool — a very presidential character trait — and allowed his disdain to show only when he was asked a question about his opponent's Bosnia gaffe. "Senator Clinton deserves the right to make some errors once in a while," he said. "What's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history."
It is the transcendent irony of this campaign that Obama, who entered the race intent on getting past the "dorm fights of the '60s," has now become deeply entangled in them. Each of the ABC moderators' questions were about controversies that erupted in the '60s. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's black-nationalist sermons had their roots in the black-power movement that corrupted Martin Luther King Jr.'s "beloved community." The sprouting of flag pins on the lapels of politicians was a response to the flag-burning of antiwar protesters; the violence of Weather Underground members like William Ayers, with whom Obama was said to be "friendly," was a corruption of the peace movements as well. All of these occurred before Obama reached puberty — and they helped define the social atmosphere in academic communities like Chicago's Hyde Park, where Obama now lives. For 40 years, the Republican Party has feasted on the secular humanism, feminism, distrust of the military and permissiveness that caricature such communities. For 40 years, the Democratic Party has been burdened by its inability to break free of those stereotypes.
Obama's challenge to the primacy of that sort of politics is both worthy and essential. His point, and Bill Clinton's, is indisputable: there is a need for a big election this year. A decision has to be made about the war in Iraq. The mortgage-market and the health-insurance systems are falling apart. There is a drastic need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels for national-security, environmental and basic supply-and-demand reasons. The physical and educational infrastructures of the country are badly outdated. In order to have an election about those big challenges, we need to shove some serious social issues — like gun control and, yes, even abortion — and phony character issues to the periphery. But Obama is going about it the wrong way. "After 14 long months," he said in his concession speech, "it's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics, the bickering that none of us are immune to, and it trivializes the profound issues." What's wrong with that, you might ask? It's too abstract, too detached. Too often, Obama has seemed unwilling to get down in the muck and fight off the "distractions" that are crippling his campaign. Obviously, this is strategy — his appeal has been the promise of a politics of civility (and as a black man, he wants to send low-information signals that he is neither angry nor threatening). But what if, after ABC had enabled the smarmy American-flag-pin question from an "average citizen," Obama had taken on George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson directly, "Why aren't you guys wearing pins? Why isn't Hillary?" Indeed, this was Clinton's strategy in an earlier debate, upbraiding her questioners from MSNBC — and it may have turned the tide in her favor in Ohio and Texas.
In the last days of the Pennsylvania campaign, Obama made a halfhearted attempt to go negative. He ran ads distorting Clinton's health-care plan, claiming that it would force everyone to get health insurance (true), even if they couldn't afford it (false). He devoted more and more of his stump speech to slagging Clinton. "She's got the kitchen sink flying, the china flying — the buffet is coming at me," he said during a whistle-stop tour of southeastern Pennsylvania. His delivery of the kitchen-sink line was droll, but the rest of the tour was surprisingly soporific. He seemed fed up with campaigning — as any reasonably sane human being would be at this point — and embittered by the turn the race had taken.
I'm not sure that Bill and Hillary Clinton are reasonably sane human beings, at least not when they are running for office: they become robo-pols, tireless and seemingly indestructible. Senator Clinton was on fire in the days before the Pennsylvania primary, as energized as I've ever seen her. She barely mentioned Obama at all but fiercely plowed her latest field — the populist granddaughter of a Pennsylvania factory worker, the daughter of a Penn State football player. As she said in her victory speech, "You know, tonight, all across Pennsylvania and America, teachers are grading papers, and doctors and nurses are caring for the sick, and you deserve a leader who listens to you. Waitresses are pouring coffee, and police officers are standing guard, and small businesses are working to meet that payroll. And you deserve a champion who stands with you."
There was a warmth and a feistiness to Clinton in Pennsylvania — the very qualities that Obama was lacking. She had embraced the shameless rituals of politics, including some classic low-information signals, downing shots of Crown Royal and promising lower gas prices, attacking her opponent over trivia and threatening to "obliterate" Iran. It was enough to earn the ire of the New York Times editorial page, which harrumphed, "By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues ... she undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be President."
Well, tsk-tsk and ahem! But part of the problem with editorial writers — and, truth to tell, columnists like me — is a narrow definition of the qualifications necessary to be President. It helps to be a warrior, for one thing. It helps to be able to take a punch and deliver one — even, sometimes, a sucker punch. A certain familiarity with life as it is lived by normal Americans is useful; a distance from the élite precincts of academia, where unrepentant terrorists can sip wine in good company, is essential. Hillary Clinton has learned these lessons the hard way; Barack Obama thinks they are "the wrong lessons." The nomination is, obviously, his to lose. But the presidency will not be won if he doesn't learn that the only way to reach the high-minded conversation he wants, and the country badly needs, is to figure out how to maneuver his way through the gutter.
For Indiana Voters, Talk of Change May Fall Flat
April 24, 2008
The New York Times
By MONICA DAVEY
KOKOMO, Ind. — With all the talk among the Democratic presidential hopefuls about change, they may wish to consider this as they wander Indiana: People here practically revolted a few years ago when their governor, Mitch Daniels, pushed to change to daylight saving time like most of the country.
Change, it seems, may not carry quite the same political magic in this state as it has elsewhere.
“We hold onto a lot of traditional values,” said Brian L. Thomas, 39, as he bought a cup of coffee along the courthouse square here on Wednesday. “Saying you’re ready to change is probably not the best or only thing you would want to say around these parts. Frankly, we want it to be like it used to be.”
Many of the two dozen voters interviewed in this central Indiana manufacturing city of 46,000 expressed queasiness over the notions of change that both Democratic candidates have proudly pledged elsewhere. Though residents bemoaned economic conditions that have taken away thousands of factory jobs and given the state the 11th-highest rate of foreclosures, they also said they worried about doing things — anything — very differently.
“What are we going to change to?” asked Ron O’Bryan, 58, a retired auto worker who said he was still trying to decide which Democrat to vote for in the May 6 primary. “You mean change to some other country’s system? What do you think they mean?”
Jeremy Lewis, a 28-year-old window washer, said simply, “Old-fashioned can be in a good way.”
As the Democratic presidential hopefuls turned to Indiana as a new battleground in the fight for the nomination, they find themselves facing a different audience in places like Kokomo, a blue-collar city in the middle of endless expanses of farms north of Indianapolis. In some ways, these are voters not so unlike those in other Rust Belt states, like Pennsylvania, but with an added dose of nostalgia and a practical, Midwestern sensibility.
“We are manufacturing workers, farmers, beer drinkers, gun owners, pickup drivers,” said Karen Lasley, 64, who was volunteering on Wednesday morning in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s field office in Kokomo (one of 28 Mrs. Clinton has opened around the state along with Senator Barack Obama’s 22, including one just down the street). “We are full of pride for this country.”
Politically, though, Indiana is by no means monolithic: its terrain is more of a quilt, as elaborate as its tangled time-zone map, complicating matters for the campaigns as they decide where to devote time and money.
Northwest Indiana, often viewed as an extension of suburban Chicago and sharing Chicago’s television market, is seen as strong territory for Mr. Obama, who lives on the South Side of Chicago. Indianapolis, the state capital, which includes a large segment of Indiana’s 9 percent African-American population, is also expected to lean toward Mr. Obama. In the blue-collar, rural parts south of Indianapolis, where the residents often have stronger links to Kentucky than to Illinois (or even Indiana), Mrs. Clinton is expected to have the advantage.
As with so many recent primaries, no one — here or elsewhere — ever anticipated that Indiana’s presidential primary would matter much. For 40 years, the primary here has come too late, so the change comes as a shock to voters who rarely had seen presidential campaign advertisements, to political organizers and to overwhelmed election registrars.
And unlike some other states, including Pennsylvania, Indiana has mostly been ignored in general elections, too. It has long been written off by both parties as so reliably Republican in presidential races as to not be worth much note. After 1936, a Democratic presidential candidate has won the general election here only once, Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.
“Every year, two minutes after our polls close, they declare Indiana for the Republicans and that’s that,” Bob Stephenson, the local Democratic chairman said. “This is really something special to have people listening.”
There are 72 delegates at stake, and this is an open primary; in practice, anyone may choose a Democratic ballot, though state officials say technically there is a provision allowing voters to be challenged if they are believed to be switching party affiliations at the polls. Some 4.3 million voters are registered in the state, including 200,000 new voters this year. More than 50,000 people have already cast ballots in early voting.
Mr. Stephenson has fretted over whether there will be enough ballots printed here to handle the expected onslaught of voters and has struggled to find enough poll workers who are not already volunteering for the Clinton or Obama campaigns.
Around the state, the candidates are battling for endorsements. Lee H. Hamilton, the former congressman, has endorsed Mr. Obama, while Mrs. Clinton has the support of Senator Evan Bayh, and Dan Parker, the state party chairman. Some political analysts here, though, played down the significance of the state party’s political apparatus for getting out the vote.
Even Greg Goodnight, the new mayor of Kokomo, said he had been astonished by the telephone calls he had been getting lately: Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton each sought his blessing. He shows visitors a separate letter from former President Bill Clinton, still in its envelope, on his desk, but he has yet to take sides.
Mr. Goodnight and others here say the race is certain to hinge on the economy. Indiana has lost about one in six of its manufacturing jobs since 2001, and Kokomo has similarly struggled. One plant here employed 300 people not long ago, Mr. Goodnight said; today, 20 workers tend to a warehouse of products imported from other countries.
“Indiana and Kokomo are a good reflection of the rest of the country,” said Mr. Goodnight, a Democrat who once worked in a factory and whose office bookshelf includes a biography of Harry S. Truman; “Dude, Where’s My Country?” by Michael Moore; and the Bible. “Places like Kokomo cannot handle even four more years of these economic policies.”
Everyone in this town — everyone of a certain age, at least — seems to remember exactly where they were the last time a presidential primary election in this state counted for anything. Some recall skipping class or slipping out of work. The year was 1968, and the eventual winner, Robert F. Kennedy, came right through Kokomo and spoke on the courthouse square.
Amanda Cox contributed reporting from New York, and Kitty Bennett from Washington.
The New York Times
By MONICA DAVEY
KOKOMO, Ind. — With all the talk among the Democratic presidential hopefuls about change, they may wish to consider this as they wander Indiana: People here practically revolted a few years ago when their governor, Mitch Daniels, pushed to change to daylight saving time like most of the country.
Change, it seems, may not carry quite the same political magic in this state as it has elsewhere.
“We hold onto a lot of traditional values,” said Brian L. Thomas, 39, as he bought a cup of coffee along the courthouse square here on Wednesday. “Saying you’re ready to change is probably not the best or only thing you would want to say around these parts. Frankly, we want it to be like it used to be.”
Many of the two dozen voters interviewed in this central Indiana manufacturing city of 46,000 expressed queasiness over the notions of change that both Democratic candidates have proudly pledged elsewhere. Though residents bemoaned economic conditions that have taken away thousands of factory jobs and given the state the 11th-highest rate of foreclosures, they also said they worried about doing things — anything — very differently.
“What are we going to change to?” asked Ron O’Bryan, 58, a retired auto worker who said he was still trying to decide which Democrat to vote for in the May 6 primary. “You mean change to some other country’s system? What do you think they mean?”
Jeremy Lewis, a 28-year-old window washer, said simply, “Old-fashioned can be in a good way.”
As the Democratic presidential hopefuls turned to Indiana as a new battleground in the fight for the nomination, they find themselves facing a different audience in places like Kokomo, a blue-collar city in the middle of endless expanses of farms north of Indianapolis. In some ways, these are voters not so unlike those in other Rust Belt states, like Pennsylvania, but with an added dose of nostalgia and a practical, Midwestern sensibility.
“We are manufacturing workers, farmers, beer drinkers, gun owners, pickup drivers,” said Karen Lasley, 64, who was volunteering on Wednesday morning in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s field office in Kokomo (one of 28 Mrs. Clinton has opened around the state along with Senator Barack Obama’s 22, including one just down the street). “We are full of pride for this country.”
Politically, though, Indiana is by no means monolithic: its terrain is more of a quilt, as elaborate as its tangled time-zone map, complicating matters for the campaigns as they decide where to devote time and money.
Northwest Indiana, often viewed as an extension of suburban Chicago and sharing Chicago’s television market, is seen as strong territory for Mr. Obama, who lives on the South Side of Chicago. Indianapolis, the state capital, which includes a large segment of Indiana’s 9 percent African-American population, is also expected to lean toward Mr. Obama. In the blue-collar, rural parts south of Indianapolis, where the residents often have stronger links to Kentucky than to Illinois (or even Indiana), Mrs. Clinton is expected to have the advantage.
As with so many recent primaries, no one — here or elsewhere — ever anticipated that Indiana’s presidential primary would matter much. For 40 years, the primary here has come too late, so the change comes as a shock to voters who rarely had seen presidential campaign advertisements, to political organizers and to overwhelmed election registrars.
And unlike some other states, including Pennsylvania, Indiana has mostly been ignored in general elections, too. It has long been written off by both parties as so reliably Republican in presidential races as to not be worth much note. After 1936, a Democratic presidential candidate has won the general election here only once, Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.
“Every year, two minutes after our polls close, they declare Indiana for the Republicans and that’s that,” Bob Stephenson, the local Democratic chairman said. “This is really something special to have people listening.”
There are 72 delegates at stake, and this is an open primary; in practice, anyone may choose a Democratic ballot, though state officials say technically there is a provision allowing voters to be challenged if they are believed to be switching party affiliations at the polls. Some 4.3 million voters are registered in the state, including 200,000 new voters this year. More than 50,000 people have already cast ballots in early voting.
Mr. Stephenson has fretted over whether there will be enough ballots printed here to handle the expected onslaught of voters and has struggled to find enough poll workers who are not already volunteering for the Clinton or Obama campaigns.
Around the state, the candidates are battling for endorsements. Lee H. Hamilton, the former congressman, has endorsed Mr. Obama, while Mrs. Clinton has the support of Senator Evan Bayh, and Dan Parker, the state party chairman. Some political analysts here, though, played down the significance of the state party’s political apparatus for getting out the vote.
Even Greg Goodnight, the new mayor of Kokomo, said he had been astonished by the telephone calls he had been getting lately: Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton each sought his blessing. He shows visitors a separate letter from former President Bill Clinton, still in its envelope, on his desk, but he has yet to take sides.
Mr. Goodnight and others here say the race is certain to hinge on the economy. Indiana has lost about one in six of its manufacturing jobs since 2001, and Kokomo has similarly struggled. One plant here employed 300 people not long ago, Mr. Goodnight said; today, 20 workers tend to a warehouse of products imported from other countries.
“Indiana and Kokomo are a good reflection of the rest of the country,” said Mr. Goodnight, a Democrat who once worked in a factory and whose office bookshelf includes a biography of Harry S. Truman; “Dude, Where’s My Country?” by Michael Moore; and the Bible. “Places like Kokomo cannot handle even four more years of these economic policies.”
Everyone in this town — everyone of a certain age, at least — seems to remember exactly where they were the last time a presidential primary election in this state counted for anything. Some recall skipping class or slipping out of work. The year was 1968, and the eventual winner, Robert F. Kennedy, came right through Kokomo and spoke on the courthouse square.
Amanda Cox contributed reporting from New York, and Kitty Bennett from Washington.
Is Obama ready for Primetime?
Wall Street Journal
OPINION
DOW JONES REPRINTS
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit:www.djreprints.com.• See a sample reprint in PDF format.• Order a reprint of this article now.
Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?
By KARL ROVEApril 24, 2008; Page A13
After being pummeled 55% to 45% in the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama was at a loss for explanations. The best he could do was to compliment his supporters in an email saying, "you helped close the gap to a slimmer margin than most thought possible." Then he asked for money.
With $42 million in the bank, money is the least of Sen. Obama's problems. He needs a credible message that convinces Democrats he should be president. In recent days, he's spent too much time proclaiming his inevitable nomination. But they already know he's won more states, votes and delegates.
Chad Crowe
His words wear especially thin when he was dealt a defeat like Tuesday's. Mr. Obama was routed despite outspending Hillary Clinton on television by almost 3-1. While polls in the final days showed a possible 4% or 5% Clinton win, she apparently took late-deciders by a big margin to clinch the landslide.
Where she cobbled together her victory should cause concern in the Obama HQ. She did better – and he worse – than expected in Philadelphia's suburbs. Mrs. Clinton won two of these four affluent suburban counties, home of the white-wine crowd Mr. Obama has depended on for victories before.
In the small town and rural "bitter" precincts, she clobbered him. Mr. Obama's state chair was Sen. Bob Casey, who hails from Lackawanna County in northeast Pennsylvania. She carried that county 74%-25%. In the state's 61 less-populous counties, she won 63% – and by 278,266 votes. Her margin of victory statewide was 208,024 votes.
Mrs. Clinton's problem remains that she's behind in the delegate count, with 1,589 to Mr. Obama's 1,714. Neither candidate will get to the 2,025 needed for nomination with elected delegates. But the Democratic Party's rules of proportionality mean it will be hard to close that margin among the 733 delegates yet to be elected or declared. Mrs. Clinton will need to take 58% of the remaining delegates. Thus far, she's been able to get that or better in just four of the 46 contests.
Her path gets rougher. While Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico are good territory for her, Oregon and Montana may not be. And Mrs. Clinton will be outspent badly. She entered April with $9.3 million in cash, but debts of $10.3 million. Mr. Obama had $42.5 million but only $663,000 in unpaid bills.
In Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama's money could only wipe out half a purported 20% deficit, but the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls shows Mr. Obama behind by 2% in Indiana and ahead in North Carolina by 16%. Those states will vote in two weeks. The financial throw weight he will have in the Hoosier State could more than erase Mrs. Clinton's lead there, while keeping North Carolina solidly in his column. His money could give him a double knockout on May 6, which would effectively end her bid for the presidency.
If she wins Indiana, however, she will surely go forward – and Democrats run the risk of a split decision in June. Mr. Obama could have more delegates, but she could have more popular votes. In fact, on Tuesday night she actually grabbed the popular vote lead: If you include the Michigan and Florida primary results, Mrs. Clinton now leads the popular vote by a slim 113,000 votes out of 29,914,356 cast.
Mr. Obama will argue he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and didn't campaign in Florida. But don't Democrats want to count all the votes in all the contests? After all, Mr. Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot; it isn't something he was forced to do. And while he didn't campaign in Florida, neither did she.
And what about the Michigan and Florida delegates? By my calculations, she should pick up about 54 delegates on Mr. Obama if they are seated (this assumes the Michigan "uncommitted" delegates go for Mr. Obama). If he is ahead in June by a number similar to his lead today of 125, does he let the two delegations in and make the convention vote even closer? Or does he continue to act as if two states with 41 of the 270 electoral votes needed for the White House don't exist?
The Democratic Party has two weakened candidates. Mrs. Clinton started as a deeply flawed candidate: the palpable and unpleasant sense of entitlement, the absence of a clear and optimistic message, the grating personality impatient to be done with the little people and overly eager for a return to power, real power, the phoniness and the exaggerations. These problems have not diminished over the long months of the contest. They have grown. She started out with the highest negatives of any major candidate in an open race for the presidency and things have only gotten worse.
And what of the reborn Adlai Stevenson? Mr. Obama is befuddled and angry about the national reaction to what are clearly accepted, even commonplace truths in San Francisco and Hyde Park. How could anyone take offense at the observation that people in small-town and rural American are "bitter" and therefore "cling" to their guns and their faith, as well as their xenophobia? Why would anyone raise questions about a public figure who, for only 20 years, attended a church and developed a close personal relationship with its preacher who says AIDS was created by our government as a genocidal tool to be used against people of color, who declared America's chickens came home to roost on 9/11, and wants God to damn America? Mr. Obama has a weakness among blue-collar working class voters for a reason.
His inspiring rhetoric is a potent tool for energizing college students and previously uninvolved African-American voters. But his appeals are based on two aspirational pledges he is increasingly less credible in making.
Mr. Obama's call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship. And his repeated calls to remember Dr. Martin Luther King's "fierce urgency of now" in tackling big issues falls flat as voters discover that he has not provided leadership on any major legislative battle.
Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their too-ing and fro-ing. He has held his energy and talent in reserve for the more important task of advancing his own political career, which means running for president.
But something happened along the way. Voters saw in the Philadelphia debate the responses of a vitamin-deficient Stevenson act-a-like. And in the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary, they saw him alternate between whining about his treatment by Mrs. Clinton and the press, and attacking Sen. John McCain by exaggerating and twisting his words. No one likes a whiner, and his old-style attacks undermine his appeals for postpartisanship.
Mr. Obama is near victory in the Democratic contest, but it is time for him to reset, freshen his message and say something new. His conduct in the last several weeks raises questions about whether, for all his talents, he is ready to be president.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
OPINION
DOW JONES REPRINTS
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit:www.djreprints.com.• See a sample reprint in PDF format.• Order a reprint of this article now.
Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?
By KARL ROVEApril 24, 2008; Page A13
After being pummeled 55% to 45% in the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama was at a loss for explanations. The best he could do was to compliment his supporters in an email saying, "you helped close the gap to a slimmer margin than most thought possible." Then he asked for money.
With $42 million in the bank, money is the least of Sen. Obama's problems. He needs a credible message that convinces Democrats he should be president. In recent days, he's spent too much time proclaiming his inevitable nomination. But they already know he's won more states, votes and delegates.
Chad Crowe
His words wear especially thin when he was dealt a defeat like Tuesday's. Mr. Obama was routed despite outspending Hillary Clinton on television by almost 3-1. While polls in the final days showed a possible 4% or 5% Clinton win, she apparently took late-deciders by a big margin to clinch the landslide.
Where she cobbled together her victory should cause concern in the Obama HQ. She did better – and he worse – than expected in Philadelphia's suburbs. Mrs. Clinton won two of these four affluent suburban counties, home of the white-wine crowd Mr. Obama has depended on for victories before.
In the small town and rural "bitter" precincts, she clobbered him. Mr. Obama's state chair was Sen. Bob Casey, who hails from Lackawanna County in northeast Pennsylvania. She carried that county 74%-25%. In the state's 61 less-populous counties, she won 63% – and by 278,266 votes. Her margin of victory statewide was 208,024 votes.
Mrs. Clinton's problem remains that she's behind in the delegate count, with 1,589 to Mr. Obama's 1,714. Neither candidate will get to the 2,025 needed for nomination with elected delegates. But the Democratic Party's rules of proportionality mean it will be hard to close that margin among the 733 delegates yet to be elected or declared. Mrs. Clinton will need to take 58% of the remaining delegates. Thus far, she's been able to get that or better in just four of the 46 contests.
Her path gets rougher. While Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico are good territory for her, Oregon and Montana may not be. And Mrs. Clinton will be outspent badly. She entered April with $9.3 million in cash, but debts of $10.3 million. Mr. Obama had $42.5 million but only $663,000 in unpaid bills.
In Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama's money could only wipe out half a purported 20% deficit, but the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls shows Mr. Obama behind by 2% in Indiana and ahead in North Carolina by 16%. Those states will vote in two weeks. The financial throw weight he will have in the Hoosier State could more than erase Mrs. Clinton's lead there, while keeping North Carolina solidly in his column. His money could give him a double knockout on May 6, which would effectively end her bid for the presidency.
If she wins Indiana, however, she will surely go forward – and Democrats run the risk of a split decision in June. Mr. Obama could have more delegates, but she could have more popular votes. In fact, on Tuesday night she actually grabbed the popular vote lead: If you include the Michigan and Florida primary results, Mrs. Clinton now leads the popular vote by a slim 113,000 votes out of 29,914,356 cast.
Mr. Obama will argue he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and didn't campaign in Florida. But don't Democrats want to count all the votes in all the contests? After all, Mr. Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot; it isn't something he was forced to do. And while he didn't campaign in Florida, neither did she.
And what about the Michigan and Florida delegates? By my calculations, she should pick up about 54 delegates on Mr. Obama if they are seated (this assumes the Michigan "uncommitted" delegates go for Mr. Obama). If he is ahead in June by a number similar to his lead today of 125, does he let the two delegations in and make the convention vote even closer? Or does he continue to act as if two states with 41 of the 270 electoral votes needed for the White House don't exist?
The Democratic Party has two weakened candidates. Mrs. Clinton started as a deeply flawed candidate: the palpable and unpleasant sense of entitlement, the absence of a clear and optimistic message, the grating personality impatient to be done with the little people and overly eager for a return to power, real power, the phoniness and the exaggerations. These problems have not diminished over the long months of the contest. They have grown. She started out with the highest negatives of any major candidate in an open race for the presidency and things have only gotten worse.
And what of the reborn Adlai Stevenson? Mr. Obama is befuddled and angry about the national reaction to what are clearly accepted, even commonplace truths in San Francisco and Hyde Park. How could anyone take offense at the observation that people in small-town and rural American are "bitter" and therefore "cling" to their guns and their faith, as well as their xenophobia? Why would anyone raise questions about a public figure who, for only 20 years, attended a church and developed a close personal relationship with its preacher who says AIDS was created by our government as a genocidal tool to be used against people of color, who declared America's chickens came home to roost on 9/11, and wants God to damn America? Mr. Obama has a weakness among blue-collar working class voters for a reason.
His inspiring rhetoric is a potent tool for energizing college students and previously uninvolved African-American voters. But his appeals are based on two aspirational pledges he is increasingly less credible in making.
Mr. Obama's call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship. And his repeated calls to remember Dr. Martin Luther King's "fierce urgency of now" in tackling big issues falls flat as voters discover that he has not provided leadership on any major legislative battle.
Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their too-ing and fro-ing. He has held his energy and talent in reserve for the more important task of advancing his own political career, which means running for president.
But something happened along the way. Voters saw in the Philadelphia debate the responses of a vitamin-deficient Stevenson act-a-like. And in the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary, they saw him alternate between whining about his treatment by Mrs. Clinton and the press, and attacking Sen. John McCain by exaggerating and twisting his words. No one likes a whiner, and his old-style attacks undermine his appeals for postpartisanship.
Mr. Obama is near victory in the Democratic contest, but it is time for him to reset, freshen his message and say something new. His conduct in the last several weeks raises questions about whether, for all his talents, he is ready to be president.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Why Clinton won Pennsylvania
Why Clinton won Pennsylvania
David Paul KuhnTue Apr 22, 11:37 PM ET
For all the campaigning and money spent, Hillary Rodham Clinton won Pennsylvania with the same base of white women, working-class voters and white men that revived her candidacy in Ohio last month. The demography that has defined the Democratic race went largely unchanged, according to exit polls.
To Clinton's relief, Pennsylvania proved more of a repeat of her win in Ohio rather than an echo of Wisconsin, where Obama won with the support of white men and blue-collar Democrats while neutralizing Clinton's base of white female support.
There were few surprises in Pennsylvania, according to the exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for television networks and The Associated Press. Clinton held about 65 percent of white women and about 55 percent of the key swing bloc of white men, a strong showing though slightly weaker than her Ohio showing.
Clinton has now won white men in 12 states and Obama has done the same in 10 states.
Obama did win more than nine in 10 black voters, continuing his unbroken support of African-Americans. And Clinton continued her trend of winning white women in all but a couple of contests. But other trends may prove disconcerting for Obama.
Obama won six in 10 voters age 29 and under. But Clinton split young white voters, as she did in Ohio. In early February, Obama heavily lost whites in Missouri but narrowly won the state with the help of 57 percent of the white youth vote.
Young Democrats made up only 12 percent of voters, however. In comparison, fully 22 percent were age 65 and older. Clinton won more than six in 10 senior voters while winning a majority of all voters 40 and older.
Also similar to Ohio, Clinton won nearly six in 10 of those voters without college degrees, a strong indicator of working class status. Obama's bus tour and advertising blitz targeting working-class voters appears to have had little effect. The same can be said for the row over Obama's remarks about "bitter" Midwestern small town voters, though that too was expected, as polling indicated that it was mostly non-Democrats who were offended.
Obama won only a slight majority of voters with college degrees, again largely reflecting the Ohio results. That is a disconcerting result for Obama, as the Illinois senator needed to dominate voters with higher levels of education to overcome Clinton's advantage in the state. It has been Obama's base of blacks and highly educated whites that has formed the bedrock of his victories throughout the primary race.
Clinton won about six in 10 of those who had decided in either the past three days or the past week whom they were going to support, again mimicking Ohio. One in four Pennsylvania Democrats decided their vote in the past week. Six in 10 voters said they chose their candidate more than a month ago, a higher proportion than usual and one more indication that many Pennsylvanian Democrats had their vote resolved early on in the race.
As has been the case throughout the Democratic primary, the economy was the most important issue to voters. Of the more than half of voters who said the economy mattered most, Clinton won a clear majority. About one in four voters said the war in Iraq mattered most to them, and Obama won a clear majority of them. Only 14 percent of voters said health care mattered most, and Clinton won a majority of their support.
Fewer than one in 10 voters said electability mattered most, a trend that has long been true in the primary as Democrats focus less on pragmatism than on personal identity.
A slim majority of Democrats said the capacity to bring about "change" was the candidate quality that mattered most. Obama won seven in 10 of that bloc, but as in other large states, that strength was not enough to overcome their unsympathetic breakdowns by race and gender.
One in four Democrats said experience mattered most and as expected Clinton won over 90 percent of their support.
Clinton won six in 10 Democrats who had a gun in the home and nearly six in 10 weekly churchgoers. Half of Democratic voters lived in the suburbs and a quarter in small cities or rural areas. Clinton won a strong majority of both groups, while Obama won a strong majority of those voters in cities with populations over 50,000.
Obama won about six in 10 voters from the suburbs and the city of Philadelphia, though only about three in 10 voters overall. Clinton won a strong majority of Democrats in every other region of the state, winning nearly seven in 10 voters in the rural northeast where she has family roots.
Liberal and conservative Democrats effectively split between Obama and Clinton. It was moderates, four in 10 Democratic voters, who went heavily to Clinton's favor -- she won more than six in 10.
Obama won six in 10 new Democrats, but they made up only slightly more than 10 percent of voters. Clinton won more than 55 percent of those Democrats who were registered with the party prior to January.
Clinton's victory with traditional Democrats also carried into strength with blue-collar white men and those from union households; she won a majority of both groups.
More than half of Democrats said they expected Obama to be the Democratic nominee, despite Clinton's win Tuesday. While the demographic breakdown of the race and the delegate lead of Obama remain largely unchanged as the race pushes on, there were once again disturbing signs for Democrats as they looked toward to the general election.
About one in four Clinton supporters said they would back John McCain in the general election should Obama win, while fewer than one in five of Obama's voters said they support McCain if Clinton should win.
About 35 percent of Democrats said they would be dissatisfied if Obama won the nomination, while roughly one in four Democrats said they too would be dissatisfied should Clinton win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)