The Politics of Sexism and Media Bias this Primary Season

The media has played an extremely important and misplaced role in helping select the Democratic Party nominee. In doing so, the media displayed its true sexist nature and the sexist nature of American politics. A cursory review of what has happened over these past few months reveals the extent of the problem during these primaries:

UPDATE May 21, 2008 11:45 am
Last night as Clinton blew out Obama in Kenbtucky: CNN Analyst says it's accurate to call Hillary a bitch.


___________________________________________________


1. Obama-Backing Congressman Compares Hillary Clinton to Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction'

Chris Rock said it last month: "It's going to be hard for Barack to be president. ... Hillary's not going to give up. She's like Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction.'"

Then NPR political editor Ken Rudin made the joke, saying on "CNN Sunday Morning" that Clinton was "Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction' -- she's going to keep coming back, and they're not going to stop her." (Rudin later apologized.)

This week, Obama-backing Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., said on local television, when asked about Sen. Clinton, that "Glenn Close should have just stayed in the tub."

2. From our friends at the BBC:

The candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to die. She has been compared to the Duracell battery bunny that keeps on shuffling when others, powered by lesser fuel cells, have ground to a halt. Less kindly she has been likened to Glenn Close in the film "Fatal Attraction", who is supposed to have been drowned in the bathtub but then comes back in one last terrifying moment, wielding a carving knife.

3. Clinton Campaign Brought Sexism Out of Hiding - and there is more so read the commentary.

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan "Bros before Hos." The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho) and they are widely sold on the Internet.

I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs to reveal stainless steel thighs that, well, bust nuts. I won't miss television and newspaper stories that make light of the novelty item.

I won't miss episodes like the one in which the liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes called Clinton a "big f---in' whore" and said the same about former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Rhodes was appearing at an event sponsored by a San Francisco radio station, before an audience of appreciative Obama supporters -- one of whom had promoted the evening on the presumptive Democratic nominee's official campaign Web site.

4. From the Columbia Journalism Review: Camp Clinton as Cast by MSNBC

As cast by MSNBC commentators on the night of Hillary's huge 2-1 shellacking of Obama in West Virginia:

If you got your West Virginia primary coverage from MSNBC, then you know:

1) Hillary Clinton is thisclose to becoming “the Al Sharpton of white people,” per Chris Matthews, what with all of her talk about “white people” and her “so loosely say[ing] ‘hardworking white workers’” (a step up, for sure, from another recent Hillary Clinton comparison: Rep. Steve Cohen, D-TN, likening Clinton to Glenn Close’s bunny-boiling Fatal Attraction character).

2) To Keith Olbermann’s eyes, the Clinton campaign’s fundraising efforts are thisclose to becoming:

OLBERMANN: I don’t want to use the term Ponzi scheme, but if we were not talking politics and the chance for a pay off for people who were investing or donating to the campaign were as little as it is for those people donating to Senator Clinton, we might use the word pyramid or Ponzi scheme. At what point does it become some sort of political scam to be insisting to people this can happen when the odds are the proverbial odds of passing the camel through the needle?

TIM RUSSERT: Terry [McAuliffe, Clinton’s campaign chairman] tried to frame it the last three days, with all his appearances on TV shows, anything is possible. As long as there’s a possibility, everything is done with the most noble intentions.

5. From Media Matters; Please read the entire article:

After vowing not to underestimate Clinton, Matthews asserted, "[T]he reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around"

6. The Matthews Video of January 9, 2008, after Clinton's NH victory:





7. Hecklers feel emboldened by the Media's sexism, or maybe it's the other way around:



8. Sexism alive and well in American business:





9. And from the left-wing:

An Example of Disgusting Sexism against Senator Clinton

Most of the time when he mentions Senator Clinton's name, he refers to her only as "Bill's lover" and "the woman who stood by him when he got a blow job from Monica Lewinsky." He has no respect for Hillary Clinton at all, even though since 1992 he has been singing the praises of the Clintons. Suddenly she is a "witch", and a "broad." He has demonized her completely, and it's so shocking to me.

10. Comparing Clinton to "everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court"

On the January 23 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, during a discussion of the January 21 Democratic presidential candidates debate with an all-male panel that included co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist, and guest co-host David Shuster, political and social commentator Mike Barnicle said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): "when she reacts the way she reacts to [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court, OK? Looking at him that way, all I could think of ... was this fall, if it's [Sen. John] McCain [R-AZ] that she's facing, McCain is likable. She's not." All three MSNBC co-hosts laughed at Barnicle's comparison of Clinton to "everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court," with Scarborough interrupting Barnicle by laughing loudly before saying, "I'm sorry. Go ahead."

11. Comparing Clinton to Tonya Harding

On the May 15 edition of MSNBC Live, while previewing an upcoming interview with former figure skater Tonya Harding, anchor Tamron Hall stated: "Well, remember when there were those reports out that Hillary Clinton would use the so-called 'Tonya Harding strategy' to perhaps take out Barack Obama? Well, we're going to talk to the real Tonya Harding about her place in history and now her infamy within American politics. Yes, really, Mika." MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski responded: "Oh, my God." Hall said: "That's ahead on MSNBC. No, really. Really, we are." Brzezinski added: "I can't believe that. It's great."

12. Kondracke echoed Maureen Dowd "theory" that "Hillary's a vampire ... sucking the blood out of Barack Obama"

During the "All Star" panel on the May 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke presented a "theory" for why Sen. Hillary Clinton may be having a "good time" on the campaign trail: "[S]omebody I know has a theory about this. Remember back when [Bill] Clinton was president of the United States, people said that he's really Satan because he walks through life and people collapse around him and go to jail and die, and all this kind of stuff? Well, this person says Hillary's a vampire. She's sucking the blood out of Barack Obama, and you can watch him wilt and she gets healthier and healthier every day."

13. So Now the Press Tells Candidates When to Quit?

Until this election cycle, journalists simply did not consider it to be their job to tell a contender when he or she should stop campaigning. That was always dictated by how much money the campaign still had in the bank, how many votes the candidate was still getting, and what very senior members of the candidate's own party were advising. ...

And the fact is, the media's get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.
"Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."

14. Pat Buchanan said of Sen. Hillary Clinton's speech following the Pennsylvania primary that "only once or twice did that voice start rising to the level that every husband in America at one time or another has heard. You know, where it starts going up -- "

15. More from MSNBC: The Cackling Hillary Pen:




16. The media, Hillary is a b****:



17. More from MediaMatters.com: In recent days, members of the media asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton displayed "mood swings," "could be depressed," "[r]esembl[ed] someone with multiple personality disorder," and "has turned into Sybil."

18. More of the b-word:




So, what is really happening in the media?

The fact is, it's ok to call Hillary Clinton a bitch, because in our present society, it's ok to call a woman a bitch. Its no different in politics, and the media plays this up for as long as it can get away with it. The media has fed this for some time now, and made it almost impossible for Hillary. If she's aggressive she's a "bitch." If she's softer, she's "soppy." If she refuses to quit, even though her opponent does not have enough delegates to win yet, she's crazy and suffering a "Fatal Attraction."

The media bias in this campaign is clear and irrefutable. Some will try, but the fact is that the media has continually denigrated Hillary Clinton because she is a woman running for president.

The "Rules"

Many of us out here talk about the Democratic Party Delegate Selection "Rules." But, how many of us who talk about them have actually read them, especially those who condemn Hillary Clinton for making her stand in state after state. You can find them here: DNC Delegate Selection Rules

Despite many loud claims to the contrary in the media and from Clinton opponents:

1. There is no Rule "agreed to" by the candidates, but there is a Rule imposed by the party which prohibits a candidate from campaigning in a state that violates the early primary rule: Rule 20.C.1.b. Candidates did sign a pledge not to campaign in FLA and MI, including television ads.

2. There is also evidence that Obama may have violated that pledge or Rule: Obama's national television ad plays in Florida.

3. The DNC Rules do not call for or mandate a complete loss of delegates for holding an early primary; they call for a 50% reduction in delegates and alternates: Rule 20.C.1.a and 20.C.4. (Yes, I realize the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may choose to impose greater sanctions: Rule 20.C.5.)

4. Even if a state changes the democratic primary date to an impermissible early date, according to the "Rules" that state should not suffer any penalty at all if it is shown that the change was a result of a "state law" and that the Democratic leaders took all positive steps and acted in good faith to oppose that change in state law moving the primary date: Rule 20.C.7.

Of course we all know that the Florida State Legislature is 2-1 Republican and that it has a Republican Governor (Jeb Bush). Let me know how the Dems were supposed to stop the maneuver by the Republican majority to move the date to an impermissible date.

5. You will also find among the party "Rules" many are fond of talking about that any ruling or decision by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (the committee which chose to impose the death penalty on Michigan and Florida voters) may be appealed to the National Convention in Denver. In other words it is provided for in the "Rules" to challenge any ruling by the committee, including its decision to disenfranchise the FLA and MI voters. It is the Convention that is the final rule maker. Rule 23.D.

6. You will see nothing in the "Rules" which calls for ignoring the popular vote as an indicator of a candidates support.

7. You should also know that Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot; and, he did so in a blatant (albeit successful) attempt to pander to the voters in Iowa (and notice the dates on these articles):
Michigan, Iowa and the Games the Politicos Play
Off the ballot in Michigan

There simply is no DNC rule that a candidate must remove their name from the ballot in a state with an impermissible early primary or caucus. So of those so inclined, yell all you want that Obama wasn't on the ballot so we can't count the votes in Michigan. The "rules" do not support your, pardon me, Obama's, position. In an act of political pandering Obama chose to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. It is fair to say then that he must live with his decisions, good or bad in the end, after all he is running for the presidency. Because he voluntarily chose to remove his name from the ballot due to political pandering that fact certainly should not be used to support an argument that Michigan voters should be disenfranchised. Obama did it to himself.

8. People can accuse Clinton all thay want about the rules, but I believe it is the height of hypocrisy for anyone to run a self-styled campaign of "inclusion" and then turn around and say "don't count the votes."

Hillary Clinton will follow the Rules as they were written and adopted. And, just like Obama, she will use the ones that help her case. She won't ignore the Rules or break them; she will use them, just like Obama. Now that the Rules are known, Obama's arguments seem to be less genuine and much more political.

Although "Clumsy," Obama's Remarks Are a Critical Democratic Issue

Obama's word choice was clumsy, as he stated himself, there is no doubt about that. And while I do not believe that an apology is required, his remarks indicate political pandering to an audience very much unlike the subjects of his words. Pandering is politics, you can't please everyone all the time, and often words are used to get votes, this is Washington politics and Obama is not above it and employs it on a regular basis.

But the conversation about his remarks needs to be steered away from the controversy, and towards Obama's underlying intentions with the statement. He clumsily brought up a critical voting bloc issue that has plagued the Democrats for the past few election cycles: the so-called "values voters" voting Republican. These are the working-class, predominantly white voters that have given their allegiance to the Republican party of late. As Dan Schur astutely points out in a New York Times op-ed , these blue-collar Americans routinely "cast their ballots on social and values-based issues like gun ownership, abortion and same-sex marriage rather than on economic policy prescriptions." Democratic presidential candidates have been vexed as to why this is, and I think Obama was addressing this phenomenon because it is something that needs to be tackled if the Dems are to win the White House. They have to convert these former Reagan Democrats. It is a must for them to convince these voters to not vote solely on gun rights, immigration, and religion, and to win them back Obama and Clinton must appeal to their economic needs.

As the aforementioned NY Times Op-ed suggests, the manner in which Obama discussed the matter was ill-conceived, however. The words "cling" and "bitter" connote an air of elitist thought over these voters. Whereas the environmentally sensitive, pro-choice, pro-stem cell, pro-tax upper class San Franciscan Democrat is lauded for his open-mindedness and financial selflessness, a rural Pennsylvanian who "clings" to guns and xenophobic grudges, his vote must be justified for some reason, to be written off as simply "bitterness" over economic hardships. As Schur points out, it is a double standard to "diminish these cultural beliefs as a byproduct of economic discomfort." Their vote is as thought out as their San Franciscan counterpart, and to insinuate that their vote requires some justification is ill-advised if you are seeking to win their vote.

To finish, I don't believe Obama was intentionally being insensitive, but I do understand those that were upset with the comments. He was addressing an important Democratic issue for the fall, one that both candidates must win in order to reclaim the White House.

Dean Offers Hope To Enfranchise Floridians

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has not figure out a resolution to the electoral debacle that once again is Florida. But he has offered hope.

"It is our intention to do everything we can and we believe we will absolutely seat the delegation from Florida at the convention," Dean said. But, he added, it's "critical'' that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are ‘‘comfortable with the compromises that have to be worked out."

So, basically the situation has not changed, but there is at least movement on the ground to seat the Florida people's voices at the convention in some fashion, and this is a positive step in the nomination process. It would be an egregious injustice if these delegates are not seated. Dean has pointed out that is now up to the candidates to compromise on a resolution to this debacle, and it is going to be interesting to see how both approach the situation as we get closer to June, if the race is still as close or even closer than it is now. From Dean's comments, it seems that Florida will be seated, but the effect that this will have is still unclear, and the manner in which the delegation is seated rests in the candidates' hands.

Is The Tide Turning In The Media?

Lou Dobbs, with whom I rarely agree, seems to have gotten it right. In strongly worded comments he recognizes and acknowledges the inherent unfairness in the national mass media treatment of Clinton when it comes to the delegate count and each respective candidate's ability to win the nomination.

He recognizes the media's overt fondness for saying that Hillary cannot win, while ignoring that Obama also cannot win enough delegates. He points out the media's "compulsion, this insistence" that Clinton cannot win when "neither can Senator Obama."

The media has allowed the Obama campaign to frame the issue, to write the script, and to prematurely write-off Clinton. But, maybe, just maybe, the media is finally realizing that it has been taken for a ride, and that it has been ridden by Obama like a wet horse. That the media has become Obama's mouthpiece on this issue of carrying the nomination. Well, maybe it's about to end and people will realize that the numbers are the numbers, and the rules are the rules.

Who Has The Numbers

I have hesitated to write another post about the Democratic Primary, but too much hot air is being blown by too many party big wigs and mass media lately about how Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race. These party big wigs cite two reasons for their somewhat self-serving declarations: one, that the primary battle is bad for the party's chances in November, and two, that the delegate numbers are against Hillary.

The delegate numbers may be against Hillary, but, those same numbers are also against Obama. The simple fact is that neither Obama nor Clinton currently has enough delegate votes to win the nomination and neither will have enough next week, or next month, or in June. Neither Clinton nor Obama has been able to convince enough voters or caucus goers to take a majority of delegates, and neither will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination by the time this primary season is over in early June.

Just as important, from all accounts, this extended race is bringing in many,many new voters to the Democratic Party in PA, which bodes extremely well for our party and our country come November.  

Yes, Obama currently leads in pledged delegates (but it is well-know that he will not carry enough to Denver to win), and he leads in the so-called popular vote. But, by how much. According to RealClearPolitics, his current lead is less than 3% if you do not count FL or MI. If you count FL then his lead dwindles to 1.4%. (Yes, I will count FL for two simple reasons, it is the right thing to do and the DNC's ruling only strips delegates not the popular vote. Floridians count as much as any other people in the popular vote, and more so in November as a swing state).   

It also looks more and more likely that Clinton will close, and perhaps overtake some of the present pledged delegate and popular vote gap with expected primary victories in PA, KY, WV and PR, and maybe IN.

And, Clinton leads in electoral votes, which are what counts in the general election.

 

Both Obama and Clinton will need a lot of so-called superdelegate votes to win the nomination, and both are campaigning for them.  It is totally legitimate for both to do so.  Those are also the rules.   

So, let's just all relax. Let's not be afraid of the process and the voters. Let's welcome all those new voters and new Dems. Let's not be afraid. Let's continue.

Evenly Split

There are even more poll numbers showing that the Dems are evenly split, and I mean right down the middle. Rasmussen reports that among Democrats, 22% want Clinton to drop out of the race, and 22% want Obama to drop out. Also, in an indication that at least Democrats want this to go on, 67% say they are not ready for the race to end.

So, where does that leave us?

It's simply too easy to say that either candidate should drop out. In my opinion, the media and the pundits have all too often called a race over when fewer than 1% of the party members have voted, right after the IA and NH caucus and primary, maybe waiting until after SC. But, the people, at least Democrats, are speaking now, let us vote too, and it's about time the media settled down and let the voters vote.

In this day and age with a dozen cable news channels frantic to find something to say 24 hours a day, 7 days a week it has become almost impossible for any candidate to speak candidly. Their words are taken out of context, their mistatements become lies, their gaffes become headline news for several days, and their policy statements garner little more than a short article in the paper, or a few seconds on the nightly news. And, both Democratic candidates fuel this problem with the media. They pander to the press, slipping photos to reporters, irrationally emailing so-called news about the other candidate to the media, eagerly and constantly exaggerating the perceived errors of the other candidate.

It's no wonder other polls temporily show people claiming to want to jump from the party. In the end, McCain should lose much of that thin, very thin, current support.

That's not to say that during the heat of a campaign a candidate should not point out the other's mistakes, engage in argument, call -out her/his opponent on issues that matter, and even on their character. Those are all legitimate issues for the candidates and the voters. And, the Rasmussen poll numbers showing that 67% of us want this race to continue indicates that Democratic voters agree. But the level of drama over disagreements about things like Democratic party rules, whether elevated by a willing 24 hour a day media out for ratings, by unwitting (or witting) candidate accomplices, or by lowly supporters, should be tamped down before the alienation becomes permanent.

Democratic Infighting Could Spell November Disaster

Do Democrats really want John McCain as their future President? Do they want, as Barack Obama has dramatically put it, "four more years of George W. Bush?" The latest polling seems to suggest that the intense Obama-Clinton race, with the media coverage feverishly playing up only the negative aspects, has become a bloodbath between both the candidates, and, more importantly their supporters. It has produced a kind of bitterness that surely only aids McCain's pursuit of the White House. The latest Gallup Poll shows some startling figures:

28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain over Obama, while 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Clinton.

What is going on here??

If you are a hard-nosed, yellow-dog Democrat it borders on lunacy to abandon your party and either vote for John McCain, or ignore the voting booth altogether. What good does that do? Again, as I have stated before, Obama and Clinton are glaringly similar on policy, and I would think that (call me naive) most fair-minded Democrats would rather see a Clinton or Obama White House than a McCain one. At any cost. Myself being more of a moderate, independent voter, a McCain presidency is not the end of the world for me, but to see these rank and file Democrats polling like this is surprising to say the least. These are significant percentages, and could hand McCain victory.

I do want to stress that these are just polls in March, in the heat of the battle, and that of course things will be different come September. But these numbers should not be cast aside entirely, for they serve to highlight the growing divisiveness of this contest as it drags on. Hatred is brewing between the two camps, and although I believe that much will be reconciled by November (quite possibly by a shared ticket to appease both camps), if even a small percentage of Democrats stay home or pull the lever for McCain, in the tight contest I believe the general election will be, those votes will matter and could decide the outcome.

Clinton has vowed to stay in the race through the end of primary season, which means another two and a half months at least. And while I believe it is well within her rights to see how some key midwestern primaries shape out and to see the end result of the Michigan-Florida debacle, her commitment to the cause means the bitterness will only grow stronger and could push right up to the convention in August. This will leave the Democratic Party with precious little time to launch a general election campaign to thwart the Republican machine. Let's hope both candidates run a civil and noble campaign focused on the issues from here on out, and that embittered Democratic voters do not trade in their values for pride in November.

Obama Campaign Leaks Bill Clinton-Reverend Wright Photo

I had mentioned in an earlier post the inevitability of Barack Obama succumbing to "the real world of Washington politics," and that he would eventually go negative. Well he has done just that. Late yesterday, the above photo of President Clinton and the now infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright shaking hands was provided to the NY Times by the Obama campaign. The shot was taken at a 1998 annual prayer breakfast at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, where Bill Clinton addressed a group of high-profile clerics, outlining his affair with Lewinsky and confessing his sins.

Why, oh why, would Obama release this photograph at this time? Perhaps to divert attention away from the Wright mess he brought on himself? What is he saying here, that Hillary Clinton should be subject to the same ridicule over Mr. Wright that Obama has? Just because the Clintons invited him to this prayer breakfast? Come on. That is weak, and reflects so poorly on Barack. It shows vulnerability in the face of the first big challenge of his campaign. There can be no other explanation for releasing the photo than to play negative politics. No other reason. And what is funny is that it is not even good negative politics, how does this hurt Hillary? I don't see how. The American people are not going to fall for this ill-advised tactic, and I hope Obama gets some flak for it. Alluding to a prior post, is Obama abandoning his promise of "no negative attacks?" I think he is on a slippery slope, and if he falters then his campaign is running on an idea of nothing. No change, just same old, same old. Clinton spokesman Jay Carson put it best by saying:

"The Obama campaign put this photo out? How pathetic. Less than 48 hours after calling for a high-minded conversation on race, the Obama campaign is peddling photos of an occasion when President Clinton shook hands with Rev. Wright. To be clear, President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his 8 years as president."

I fully agree with the Clinton camp, and I believe America will as well. Weak, Obama... weak.

McCain Takes Fallible Stance For Facing The Blues

McCain finally got back in the headlines by suspending a staffer today for posting a video about Obama and his pastor Wright. Apparently aired on YouTube, the video implied that Obama was somehow unpatriotic and included the now recognizable clips of the Reverend's sermons.

What is interesting here though, is not the scandal of the video, but the stance that McCain is taking. He is touting, publicly, that he will not engage in personal attacks with Democrats. Does he expect us to forget his campaign against Mitt Romney. Granted, Obama and Clinton are distracting enough but you cannot imagine the people who are truly passionate about politics to forget the heated debates where Huckabee pleaded to be heard with comments such as: "I didn't come here to umpire a ballgame between these two [McCain and Romney]... I came to take a swing at a few myself."

I do not think this is an attempt to gain media attention; he did the right thing to refute his staffer's opinions. I do think that he his choosing his words a little too carefully. We have seen him succumb to personal attacks before so why would that be different when he is facing opponents that aren't even a part of his own party? It seems like he might be trapping himself.

No one should ever intentionally say things meant only to hurt feelings or point out baseless flaws, but occasionally there are aspects of a person's life that should be highlighted in order to get a better view of the whole picture. By promising not to use personal comments in debate, he may be gaining some short term publicity and respect for his ethical decisions, but he will be limiting himself in the future at best, and at worst, he will be condemned as a hypocrite. This is a lofty strategy and one that could come back to haunt him.

Clinton Tops Polls; Still Faces Uphill Battle

In the latest Gallup Poll, Senator Clinton has taken a sizeable advantage over Senator Obama. Clinton took her first lead in the weekly poll since Super Tuesday, with Democratic voters now handing her a 49% to 42% edge over Obama. In another poll, Clinton has more than doubled her lead to 16 points in Pennsylvania, 51% to 35%.

Is this due to the Reverend Wright episode? While we may never be completely sure, it is a telling statistic that the week Obama faces his first wave of scrutiny of his past or the people he associates himself with, he slides dramatically in a national popular poll. At the same time, we should keep in mind that these polls were taken before Obama's response speech on Tuesday. Even so, Obama's surge to front-runner status has been viewed by observers like me with skepticism and bewilderment, and both the Wright fiasco and these polls perhaps indicate that some Americans are feeling tentative about nominating a politician with which they have precious little history. This is Obama's first negative press, and while I think he handled it sufficiently, I do believe it proves that he could be susceptible to harsh attacks in the general election, and his slipping in the polls may put question to his electability.

Things have looked brighter for Clinton of late, and although she has widened her leads in PA and US polls, she still has a mountain to climb. The New York Times notes that Clinton needs "three breaks" to take the nomination from front-runner Obama. She absolutely must defeat Obama soundly in Pennsylvania, we are talking by at least 15 points if not more. The above poll definitely boosts confidence for Clinton's campaign on this note. Second, and with much more difficulty, she needs to come to the Convention in Denver with a lead in the national popular vote. Let's face it, she is not going to make up the pledged delegate deficit, so count that out. But having a lead in the popular vote will make her case to be the nominee much more credible. Finally, The Times states that she must win over the hearts and minds of superdelegates.

For her efforts in trying to seat Michigan and Florida's delegates, the Obama campaign will go on portraying Clinton as a politician who will do "anything to win", which is the Obama camp playing Washington politics at its finest. I have been disheartened to see Obama ducking the issue with generic responses like "we will play by the rules" and will do "whatever the DNC proposes to seat these delegates," yet castigating Clinton for her attempts to enfranchise these voices. Obama is playing the way he needs to play to win, and so is Clinton. You cannot tell me that if the situation were reversed, that Obama would not be lobbying day in and day out for those votes to count. Let's be real people. Clinton needs these votes to cut into both his delegate lead, and more importantly, his popular vote lead. So what she is doing is perfectly normal. If FL and MI are not counted, she has what seems to be an insurmountable hill to climb.

Full Transparency?...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In addition to his tax returns Senator Obama has just released his congressional earmarks for the last three years and has asked Senator Clinton to do the same. This combined with her reluctance to release her tax returns is leading towards a trend of not-so-full-disclosure and could potentially indicate that she is hiding something. First off I find it frustrating that legislator's earmarks are not public domain. Are there any arguments for keeping them private? Secondly, obviously Clinton has the right to keep her tax returns private, but considering that she is running for President of the United States shouldn't she release them?

Obama and Race

This past week, former Congresswoman and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro asserted the following:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

I want to pose a question regarding her statement. How much of Obama's current lead is attributable to his race? Personally, I feel that Ferraro's statement was ill-conceived, but not "patently absurd" as Obama has described it. I do believe that in a way, particularly for his upper class, well-educated white constituency, Obama has been able to transcend race. Many people are looking at his message of change and hope before they see his race, and for them, race becomes a non-issue. But what about the black vote? I do believe that if Obama wins such a tight contest, he will have to look back and recognize that it was largely due to him overwhelmingly carrying the black vote. This has historically been a major base for first Bill Clinton, and later Hillary. For him to take that base, I believe, will be what helps him defeat Clinton (should he do so). While I disagree with Ferraro's ludicrous statement that Obama is "lucky to be who he is" (which is just flat-out dumb), I do want to underscore that his being black should not be entirely lost when we analyze why he has catapulted to front-runner status, because a major base for the Democratic Party, black people, have shifted their allegiance from the Clinton family to the Illinois Senator, and could be the catalyst that sends him to the White House.

Dems Stay in Headlines with Mail-In Mess

The democratic party is tricky. Everything in this year's primary has created so much free media coverage for all of the candidates left of the line. Now, not only do we have an incredibly close race between the possibly first black and possibly first female candidates, but we also have a growing debacle in the states of Florida and Michigan.

If your head has been under a rock for the past few months, Florida and Michigan did not have their votes counted due to a decree made by the DNC (Democratic National Committee). They, the states, were being punished because they violated party rules and scheduled their primaries too early. Since the stakes are ever so high, this ruling is being scrutinized by many in the political arena. Howard Dean, the chair of the DNC, has suggested a mail-in ballot re-vote to fix this circus show (1).

Now that a seemingly fair solution has been identified, Dean can wash his hands of the whole affair, sit back and watch the show. And what a show there will be. The main question that needs to be addressed is how will the DNC pay for this? In an election where both candidates have generated millions of dollars in donations, it will be interesting to see where the funds come from and who thinks they have a chance to gain in this decision. It is almost reminiscent of the recent NBA decision to allow the Miami Heat to replay the last 51.9 seconds of a game they had lost to the Atlanta Hawks due to an erroneous foul out of Shaquille O'neal (2).

Much like that game, changes have occured since the initial vote, the players are different (well sort of because there are only 2 now) and the stakes are higher for those involved. This seems like a complete and total mess because we all know how inept Florida is at any kind of election process, let alone one done completely by mail.

That aside, the bigger piece to this story is the fact that Democrats are going to continue to win the headlines in the pre-general election media battle. Every day will be a new development and every week will be a new celebrity endorsement. The question I have though, is whether or not problems like this one will win the democrats votes in the presidential election or whether these continued dilemmas will cast a poor light over the blue candidates.

Source (1)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/09/michigan.florida/?iref=mpstoryview
Source (2)
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3282078

"Power" Struggle for Obama

Barack Obama's senior foreign policy adviser is hurting her candidate with her words, an Obama strength. Two stories:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/39Hillary-Clinton39s-a-monster39-Obama.3854371.jp

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_on_Obamas_Iraq_plan_best_case_scenario.html

She has since resigned as of today.

Will Obama Abandon His Promise?

This editorial from the Times is so spot on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opinion/07brooks.html?ref=opinion

This is what happens when a candidate runs on an idea and not on real policies. I applaud the Obama campaign for recruiting millions of young voters to get involved with politics, that is only good for America in the long run. But as this Democratic race has tightened after Tuesday's results, Obama is going to have to start to playing conventional, election-year politics. Look, I have no problem with attack ads, or bringing up questionable incidents from a candidate's past or present actions, as long as they do not blatantly propagate falsehoods. I mean, this type of campaigning is a result of the ill-advised American trend to vote for candidates based on character rather than policy. So in order to differentiate yourself from your opponent whom you have almost identical policy ideas on most issues, you are going to have to dig in and find reasons the people should not vote for your opponent.

But, to go back to Obama for a second. He has stated that he is going to get negative and respond in kind to Clinton by 'taking the gloves off.' And this article points out something that most have forgotten: Obama's candidacy is based on "changing politics in Washington," change, change and change. Well if he slips and starts to campaign negatively as the going gets tough, then what the hell is his candidacy about anymore? If he 'stoops to Clinton's level', then he has failed his message, and failed his followers. What would he run on? He has very little national political experience, and has very little policy differences than Clinton. As the piece points out, he would just be some one-term senator (really half-term since he has been campaigning for president since January of '07) who has abandoned his core campaign theme: changing the game of politics. And that is not the candidate I want to cast my vote for.

Key November States go to Hillary

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/us/politics/05assess.html?hp

The article above underlines the fact that Clinton is winning the key battleground states for the Democrats. Obama has not proven that he can carry big states, crucial swing states like Ohio and Florida that have figured so prominently in the past two presidential elections. What are we to make of this? If Obama cannot carry these states in his own party's primaries, why are we to believe that he will carry them in November's general election?

The fact is that Hillary Clinton is galvanizing the true Democratic base: large, urban and liberal states. We all know that the Democratic base does not lie in Idaho or Louisiana, or Kansas or Georgia. These are red states. The base lies in California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts (to name a few), all of which Clinton has won. And now she has claimed victory in Ohio and Texas, further proving that Obama has struggled to win large states, and with the huge amount of electoral votes that these states have in the general election's winner-take-all system, this becomes a discouraging sign for the Democratic party in November should Obama win the nomination.

This nomination process will last until June, and the end result will be a unified ticket between these two candidates. The only question that remains will be who will be on the top of that ticket.