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.

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.

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.

Republican Trickery in Texas

This from burkablog.com

Did Republicans Hijack the Democratic Primary?

The answer is, yes, they did. Rush Limbaugh did the hijacking. He told Republicans to vote for Clinton in the Democratic primary. Her margin in Texas was 98,000 votes. When all the numbers get crunched, you'll find that many Clinton voters have a Republican primary voting history.

Look at how low the Republican primary vote was in some races. In Ellen Cohen's district, the two Republicans polled just 2,715 early votes in 53 precincts. Where were all the voters? In the Democratic primary, voting for Clinton.

I gotta agree with Paul on this. I have spoken to more than one staunch Republican in Texas who voted for Clinton based on Limbaugh's persuasion. Maybe I'm crazy, but I didn't know people still listened to talk radio, much less Rush. If I were Obama, I would bring this up to the DNC when he and Clinton come to blows for the super delegates after the primaries. Looks like they are both in it for the long haul.

With Clinton saying on the Today Show, she'd be glad to have Obama as her running mate, she reminds me of Sanjaya from American Idol. Poor thing thinks she won and people in Texas love her. Is it good or bad to see people 'abuse' the system? Are they really doing their candidate a favor by voting for who they think is the worst candidate to put up against their guy? This rarely works in the Gauntlet III, where the small, skinny chick on the rookie squad has torn through 4 'stronger candidates.'