Love him or loathe him, Karl Rove is one of the shrewdest political analysts in the lamented US of A.
So his comments on the Democratic race to date are worth studying:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120899654405739949.html
Some snippets from a good article:
"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."
And further:
"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?"
And further:
"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."
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Clinton's march to victory
Man, is that woman tough!
There was Obama, outspending her by a margin of three to one - perhaps close to four to one.
There was Howard Dean, trying to stampede the superdelegates into a decision before all the primaries were over.
There were the swooning classes, cheerfully ignoring all facts showing that Obama could not defeat John McCain.
And yet she fought on, winning a major, and pivotal victory in Pennsylvania, trouncing Obama by a whopping 55% to 45%:
"The primaries, unfortunately, are not going to get any easier for Obama. While he should win easily in North Carolina, where he benefits from a large African-American vote and support in the state's college communities, he is going to have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large white working class vote. He can still win the nomination and lose these primaries. Pennsylvania was the last big delegate prize. But if Obama doesn't find a way now to speak to these voters, he is going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency. That remains Obama challenge in the month to come."
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ec466d61-a900-414c-8daf-16ff27ccf85c
And how did she do it? By winning in all major categories of the vote:
"Demographics may be destiny in the Democratic presidential race -- and almost nothing else matters. Despite the overwrought controversies swirling around visits to Bosnia and bitter blue-collar voters, despite one of the most plug-ugly debates in recent history, despite a late-breaking onslaught of negative ads, virtually every subcategory of the Democratic electorate performed in expected fashion. Clinton built her victory around women (57 percent in the exit polls), voters over 40 (her percentage rises in near lockstep fashion based on age), Pennsylvanians without a college degree (58 percent) and white Catholics (71 percent). Once again, Obama's strength was among black voters (89 percent), the affluent (handily winning among families earning over $150,000 a year) and voters under 30 (61 percent)."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/23/pennsylvania/
Last night we saw Clinton's rise to becoming the nominee of the Democratic Party.
If she fights this way in November, America will wake up in November to the first woman president.
What a hope and beacon for women everywhere!
There was Obama, outspending her by a margin of three to one - perhaps close to four to one.
There was Howard Dean, trying to stampede the superdelegates into a decision before all the primaries were over.
There were the swooning classes, cheerfully ignoring all facts showing that Obama could not defeat John McCain.
And yet she fought on, winning a major, and pivotal victory in Pennsylvania, trouncing Obama by a whopping 55% to 45%:
"The primaries, unfortunately, are not going to get any easier for Obama. While he should win easily in North Carolina, where he benefits from a large African-American vote and support in the state's college communities, he is going to have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large white working class vote. He can still win the nomination and lose these primaries. Pennsylvania was the last big delegate prize. But if Obama doesn't find a way now to speak to these voters, he is going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency. That remains Obama challenge in the month to come."
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ec466d61-a900-414c-8daf-16ff27ccf85c
And how did she do it? By winning in all major categories of the vote:
"Demographics may be destiny in the Democratic presidential race -- and almost nothing else matters. Despite the overwrought controversies swirling around visits to Bosnia and bitter blue-collar voters, despite one of the most plug-ugly debates in recent history, despite a late-breaking onslaught of negative ads, virtually every subcategory of the Democratic electorate performed in expected fashion. Clinton built her victory around women (57 percent in the exit polls), voters over 40 (her percentage rises in near lockstep fashion based on age), Pennsylvanians without a college degree (58 percent) and white Catholics (71 percent). Once again, Obama's strength was among black voters (89 percent), the affluent (handily winning among families earning over $150,000 a year) and voters under 30 (61 percent)."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/23/pennsylvania/
Last night we saw Clinton's rise to becoming the nominee of the Democratic Party.
If she fights this way in November, America will wake up in November to the first woman president.
What a hope and beacon for women everywhere!
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Obama's biggest flaw as presidential contender: Lack of political judgment
It's been interesting to watch the handwringing and teeth knashing of the Obama swooners since Obama crashed and burned in the debate with Clinton.
Former supporters amongst the swooning classes and chattering classes have reluctantly had to live up to the fact that their hero has feet of clay.
Witness this for instance:
"The punditocracy is worried about Barack Obama. Maureen Dowd isn’t pleased with his debate performance (although she explains it’s because he really operates on a higher plane than mere mortal politicians):
The thorny questions Obama got in the debate were absolutely predictable, yet he seemed utterly unprepared and annoyed by them. He did not do well for the same reason he failed to outmaneuver Hillary in a year’s worth of debates: he disdains the convention, the need for sound bites and witty flick-offs and game-changing jabs.
Eleanor Clift was dismayed that he “spoke haltingly much of the time” and was “on the defensive,” and she now wonders if Obama would be a nominee “whose vulnerabilities boost chances of a Republican victory in the fall.” And others (here and here and here) are equally dismayed. Some are downright disgusted by the gap between Obama’s high-minded appeal to “new politics” and the cynical realities of his campaign. Some are disappointed by the fact that “it’s still true that after so many months of promising hard truths, Obama doesn’t really force people to accept any.”
Did one debate performance do all that?""
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/3464
The answer obviously is no.
What has brought about this change of mind is a gradual realization on the part of many that Obama has one serious flaw, which, like Achilles of old, makes him vulnerable as a candidate for nominee for president.
Even good old John McCain spotted an opening:
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) affiliation with a sixties radical today, foreshadowing the kind of cultural divide that will likely dominate any contest between the two parties during the general election.
In his appearance on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the presumptive GOP presidential nominee questioned why Obama had compared William Ayers -- an academic who belonged to the Weather Underground, a violent group opposed to the Vietnam war -- to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a McCain supporter who supports the death penalty for abortion providers.
During last week's Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia, Obama deflected a question about Ayers by saying it was akin to asking whether he endorses the positions of Coburn, a senator with whom he is cordial, "who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those, either."
McCain, however, drew a sharp distinction between Ayers and Coburn, arguing that Obama's analogy highlighted how the Illinois Democrat holds values that are far from mainstream. Obama's relationship with Ayers, McCain told Stephanopoulos, "is open to question.... Because if you're going to associate and have as a friend and serve on a board and have a guy kick off your campaign that says he's unrepentant, that he wished [he] bombed more -- and then, the worst thing of all, that, I think, really indicates Senator Obama's attitude, is he had the incredible statement that he compared Mr. Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, with Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Coburn, a physician who goes to Oklahoma on the weekends and brings babies into life -- comparing those two -- I mean, that's not -- that's an attitude, frankly, that certainly isn't in keeping with the overall attitude.""
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/20/mccain_blasts_obama_over_willi.html
So, what is the flaw which will mean Obama is not the Democratic nominee?
The Cat believes this is shown by the incidents which have rocked Obama's campaign in recent months (Pastor Wright, the Weatherman, his comments on small town dwellers, etc).
The Cat believes that Obama lacks good political judgment.
Pure and simple.
And deadly in a candidate for the presidency of the USA.
Goodbye, Obama.
Former supporters amongst the swooning classes and chattering classes have reluctantly had to live up to the fact that their hero has feet of clay.
Witness this for instance:
"The punditocracy is worried about Barack Obama. Maureen Dowd isn’t pleased with his debate performance (although she explains it’s because he really operates on a higher plane than mere mortal politicians):
The thorny questions Obama got in the debate were absolutely predictable, yet he seemed utterly unprepared and annoyed by them. He did not do well for the same reason he failed to outmaneuver Hillary in a year’s worth of debates: he disdains the convention, the need for sound bites and witty flick-offs and game-changing jabs.
Eleanor Clift was dismayed that he “spoke haltingly much of the time” and was “on the defensive,” and she now wonders if Obama would be a nominee “whose vulnerabilities boost chances of a Republican victory in the fall.” And others (here and here and here) are equally dismayed. Some are downright disgusted by the gap between Obama’s high-minded appeal to “new politics” and the cynical realities of his campaign. Some are disappointed by the fact that “it’s still true that after so many months of promising hard truths, Obama doesn’t really force people to accept any.”
Did one debate performance do all that?""
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/3464
The answer obviously is no.
What has brought about this change of mind is a gradual realization on the part of many that Obama has one serious flaw, which, like Achilles of old, makes him vulnerable as a candidate for nominee for president.
Even good old John McCain spotted an opening:
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) affiliation with a sixties radical today, foreshadowing the kind of cultural divide that will likely dominate any contest between the two parties during the general election.
In his appearance on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the presumptive GOP presidential nominee questioned why Obama had compared William Ayers -- an academic who belonged to the Weather Underground, a violent group opposed to the Vietnam war -- to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a McCain supporter who supports the death penalty for abortion providers.
During last week's Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia, Obama deflected a question about Ayers by saying it was akin to asking whether he endorses the positions of Coburn, a senator with whom he is cordial, "who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those, either."
McCain, however, drew a sharp distinction between Ayers and Coburn, arguing that Obama's analogy highlighted how the Illinois Democrat holds values that are far from mainstream. Obama's relationship with Ayers, McCain told Stephanopoulos, "is open to question.... Because if you're going to associate and have as a friend and serve on a board and have a guy kick off your campaign that says he's unrepentant, that he wished [he] bombed more -- and then, the worst thing of all, that, I think, really indicates Senator Obama's attitude, is he had the incredible statement that he compared Mr. Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, with Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Coburn, a physician who goes to Oklahoma on the weekends and brings babies into life -- comparing those two -- I mean, that's not -- that's an attitude, frankly, that certainly isn't in keeping with the overall attitude.""
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/20/mccain_blasts_obama_over_willi.html
So, what is the flaw which will mean Obama is not the Democratic nominee?
The Cat believes this is shown by the incidents which have rocked Obama's campaign in recent months (Pastor Wright, the Weatherman, his comments on small town dwellers, etc).
The Cat believes that Obama lacks good political judgment.
Pure and simple.
And deadly in a candidate for the presidency of the USA.
Goodbye, Obama.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
The McCain Message that will beat Obama: Patriotism
At long last, Time magazine has, in my view, put its finger on the real meaning of the Pastor Wright issue.
Remember Wright? The clips you saw on Youtube? The clips you will see a million times if Obama is the Democratic nominee? The man who was videoed talking about God damn America, rather than God bless America?
This is the heart of the Time's take:
"Patriotism is, sadly, a crucial challenge for Obama now. His aides believe that the Wright controversy was more about anti-Americanism than it was about race. Michelle Obama's unfortunate comment that the success of the campaign had made her proud of America "for the first time" in her adult life and the Senator's own decision to stow his American-flag lapel pin — plus his Islamic-sounding name — have fed a scurrilous undercurrent of doubt about whether he is "American" enough."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1727502,00.html
The Republicans will hammer Obama on the issue of patriotism. McCain is inviolate on this issue - given his military background and POW status.
But Obama? The man who headed a committee on Afghanistan and did not call a single meeting of it? The man who took his USA pin off his jacket? The man whose wife said she was - for the first time - proud of her country?
The man who is defending Pastor Wright rather than being explicit in rejecting offensive statements made by the preacher regarding America?
It will not be pretty, and when the dust settles, McCain will have swept the electoral college.
The only hope for the Democrats is that the delegates to the convention decide the important thing is to win the presidency, and select either Clinton or a third candidate.
Remember Wright? The clips you saw on Youtube? The clips you will see a million times if Obama is the Democratic nominee? The man who was videoed talking about God damn America, rather than God bless America?
This is the heart of the Time's take:
"Patriotism is, sadly, a crucial challenge for Obama now. His aides believe that the Wright controversy was more about anti-Americanism than it was about race. Michelle Obama's unfortunate comment that the success of the campaign had made her proud of America "for the first time" in her adult life and the Senator's own decision to stow his American-flag lapel pin — plus his Islamic-sounding name — have fed a scurrilous undercurrent of doubt about whether he is "American" enough."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1727502,00.html
The Republicans will hammer Obama on the issue of patriotism. McCain is inviolate on this issue - given his military background and POW status.
But Obama? The man who headed a committee on Afghanistan and did not call a single meeting of it? The man who took his USA pin off his jacket? The man whose wife said she was - for the first time - proud of her country?
The man who is defending Pastor Wright rather than being explicit in rejecting offensive statements made by the preacher regarding America?
It will not be pretty, and when the dust settles, McCain will have swept the electoral college.
The only hope for the Democrats is that the delegates to the convention decide the important thing is to win the presidency, and select either Clinton or a third candidate.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Let Democrats in Florida & Michigan guide DNC, Obama & Clinton
Now, suddenly, Howard Dean - probably waking up to the fact that the Democrats will lose the presidency if the delegates from Florida and Michigan are not involved in the selection of the nominee - says that those delegates will be seated at the convention, IF Obama and Clinton agree:
"Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday the party was committed to seating Florida's delegates at this summer's convention as long as any agreement is supported by the party's two presidential contenders.
Dean met with Florida lawmakers to discuss ways of allocating delegates among Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton and prepare for the fall campaign in the battleground state.
The party stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates to the national convention in Denver because they ignored party rules and moved their primaries to January.
"We are committed to making sure that we do everything in our power to seat a delegation from Florida," Dean said. "We believe we will seat a delegation from Florida."
But the party chairman said it was critical that Obama and Clinton were "comfortable with the compromises that have to be worked out." The two campaigns did not have representatives at the hourlong meeting."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igrYLRrHG3P6lIbs2E7pSH0bxhvgD8VPQQ400
Up to now, Obama has resisted efforts to have a revote in Florida and Michigan, preferring to disenfranchise the Democrats from those two major states.
But there is one way the Clinton camp can provide guidance to the delegate selection committee on how to divvy up the delegates already selected.
How? Let Democrats hold a plebiscite on a few alternative ways to divvy up the delegates, and the delegate selection committee could then decide to follow the alternative selected by the majority of Democrats voting.
For example, let's say the alternatives put to a mail in vote by Democrats in June were 3 in number: (1) divide the delegates up per the votes cast (Clinton gets her percentage, Obama gets the rest), or (2) split them equally (50/50 Obama/Clinton), or (3) do not seat any delegates at all.
Democrats could mail in their votes - no doubt the Clinton supporters who offered to fund a revote in those states would fund such a plebiscite.
And with the voters from Florida and Michigan giving them guidance, the decision of the delegate selection committee will be simple: listen to the plebiscite results.
How about it, Governor Dean? Clinton? Obama?
"Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday the party was committed to seating Florida's delegates at this summer's convention as long as any agreement is supported by the party's two presidential contenders.
Dean met with Florida lawmakers to discuss ways of allocating delegates among Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton and prepare for the fall campaign in the battleground state.
The party stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates to the national convention in Denver because they ignored party rules and moved their primaries to January.
"We are committed to making sure that we do everything in our power to seat a delegation from Florida," Dean said. "We believe we will seat a delegation from Florida."
But the party chairman said it was critical that Obama and Clinton were "comfortable with the compromises that have to be worked out." The two campaigns did not have representatives at the hourlong meeting."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igrYLRrHG3P6lIbs2E7pSH0bxhvgD8VPQQ400
Up to now, Obama has resisted efforts to have a revote in Florida and Michigan, preferring to disenfranchise the Democrats from those two major states.
But there is one way the Clinton camp can provide guidance to the delegate selection committee on how to divvy up the delegates already selected.
How? Let Democrats hold a plebiscite on a few alternative ways to divvy up the delegates, and the delegate selection committee could then decide to follow the alternative selected by the majority of Democrats voting.
For example, let's say the alternatives put to a mail in vote by Democrats in June were 3 in number: (1) divide the delegates up per the votes cast (Clinton gets her percentage, Obama gets the rest), or (2) split them equally (50/50 Obama/Clinton), or (3) do not seat any delegates at all.
Democrats could mail in their votes - no doubt the Clinton supporters who offered to fund a revote in those states would fund such a plebiscite.
And with the voters from Florida and Michigan giving them guidance, the decision of the delegate selection committee will be simple: listen to the plebiscite results.
How about it, Governor Dean? Clinton? Obama?
Is Obama paying for opposing a Florida revote?
The latest poll from this critical major state seems to show this. Clinton beats McCain there, and McCain wallops Obama:
"Hillary Clinton would be a stronger Democratic presidential candidate in Florida than Barack Obama, a new poll suggests.
The Quinnipiac University poll released today shows Clinton edging presumptive Republican nominee John McCain by a 44-to-42 percent margin in Florida. The same poll shows McCain defeating Obama, 46 percent to 37 percent, in the Sunshine State.
The poll of 1,136 Florida voters was conducted March 24-31 and has a margin of error of 2.9 percent.
The poll shows divisions among Democrats that, at least for now, threaten to spill over into the November general election.
In a Clinton-McCain matchup, 78 percent of Florida Democrats said they would vote for Clinton, with 9 percent supporting McCain, 5 percent saying they wouldn't vote and 6 percent saying they weren't sure.
In an Obama-McCain matchup, only 61 percent of Florida Democrats said they would vote for Obama, with 20 percent supporting McCain. Nine percent of Democrats said they would sit out the race and 7 percent were undecided."
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/local_news/epaper/2008/04/02/0402flapoll.html
One major reason for this disparity in performance of the two Democratic contenders compared to McCain could be the opposition of the Obama campaign to a revote in Florida. Past polls have indicated that Floridians want their votes to count, and their delegates to be seated at the Democratic convention.
Obama has raised all kinds of objections to a revote, hoping to kill it.
It seems that his objections are also killing any chance he might have had of becoming president.You could say that Obama's efforts to disenfranchise the Democrats in Florida and Michigan are chickens, coming home to roost ..
"Hillary Clinton would be a stronger Democratic presidential candidate in Florida than Barack Obama, a new poll suggests.
The Quinnipiac University poll released today shows Clinton edging presumptive Republican nominee John McCain by a 44-to-42 percent margin in Florida. The same poll shows McCain defeating Obama, 46 percent to 37 percent, in the Sunshine State.
The poll of 1,136 Florida voters was conducted March 24-31 and has a margin of error of 2.9 percent.
The poll shows divisions among Democrats that, at least for now, threaten to spill over into the November general election.
In a Clinton-McCain matchup, 78 percent of Florida Democrats said they would vote for Clinton, with 9 percent supporting McCain, 5 percent saying they wouldn't vote and 6 percent saying they weren't sure.
In an Obama-McCain matchup, only 61 percent of Florida Democrats said they would vote for Obama, with 20 percent supporting McCain. Nine percent of Democrats said they would sit out the race and 7 percent were undecided."
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/local_news/epaper/2008/04/02/0402flapoll.html
One major reason for this disparity in performance of the two Democratic contenders compared to McCain could be the opposition of the Obama campaign to a revote in Florida. Past polls have indicated that Floridians want their votes to count, and their delegates to be seated at the Democratic convention.
Obama has raised all kinds of objections to a revote, hoping to kill it.
It seems that his objections are also killing any chance he might have had of becoming president.You could say that Obama's efforts to disenfranchise the Democrats in Florida and Michigan are chickens, coming home to roost ..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
