05/21/2008 - 7:00pm
White women just don't like Barack.
A new Gallup Poll analysis of Daily tracking data collected between May 1 and May 17 shows that Clinton's edge among white voters is not, as some have hypothesized, based on Obama's problems among blue-collar white men, but reflects more the fact of Clinton's strength among white women.
Is it a gender thing?
In general, Obama and Clinton perform exactly the same among non-Hispanic white men when pitted against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. Both Obama and Clinton lose to McCain among this group by 21-point margins, 36% to 57%.
While Obama loses to McCain by a nine-point margin among white women, Clinton wins by a three-point margin.

This difference persists when white women are segmented... by education.

05/21/2008 - 3:04pm
The Washington Post election blog The Trail is asking if Barack made a good decision in pandering on coal in an attempt to improve his lot in Kentucky:
Over the past two weeks, Obama's campaign has run an ad in Kentucky depicting Obama as a strong friend of the coal industry, recounting his efforts on behalf of coal miners in southern Illinois and touting his success in securing $200 million in the federal budget last year for "clean coal" technologies.
A couple of years ago Barack reached across the aisle to push a huge subsidy measure to develop liquefied coal for transportation use:
...environmentalists are dead set against it, saying it would produce even more climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions than using petroleum in cars. Liquefied coal's proponents say the emissions could be reduced by capturing and storing carbon dioxide, but that technology is years away from being realized and would add greatly to the cost of the fuel.
So the man from Hope caved:

Under fire from environmentalists, Obama a year ago backed away from his alliance with Bunning, voting against a large package of subsidies for the technology and for a more limited package that was opposed by the coal industry; in the end, neither passed.

A clever move that left his old friends mad at him, and his old friends confused:
The episode left many in the coal industry upset with Obama, and, while environmentalists were pleased with his change of heart, they were puzzled over his flirtation with an idea they scorn.
Even though he betrayed the coal industry, he used his brief friendship in the ad:
Obama "helped lead the fight for clean coal to protect our environment and save good-paying American jobs," the ad's narrator said, in language similar to a mailing that the campaign sent out in the state.
This new kind of politics is so much cooler than the old, smarmy kind, isn't it?
"He's always tried to walk a line by saying, 'I want a cleaner environment but I sure don't want to hurt the coal industry,'" said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch. "That's a very delicate line to walk."
05/21/2008 - 2:57pm
A new Zogby poll has Barack up 8 against McCain:

Obama led McCain among independents, 47 percent to 35 percent, and led among some groups of voters who have backed Clinton during their Democratic primary battle, including Catholics, Jews, union households and voters making less than $35,000 a year.

McCain led among whites, NASCAR fans, and elderly voters. McCain led with voters who believed the United States was on the right track, and Obama led with the much higher percentage of voters who believed it was on the wrong track.

That's the biggest lead for Obama. Rasmussen and Gallup have him up 3 points.

05/21/2008 - 2:30am
Hillary is right. The world, and the democratic party, is wrong.

We've had a couple of months now of requests and demands that Hillary get out of the race. It's over, we've been told many times. The explanation - Hillary can't catch up in pledged delegates.
....former Sen. Tom Daschle, a key Obama adviser, said now is the time for Democrats to coalesce behind Obama in order to defeat Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain.
Who is he to say? Hillary supporters aren't buying it, and why should they?
In a full page ad in The New York Times, Clinton’s female supporters demanded she stay in the race despite overwhelming odds.
What if Hillary had won Oregon to go along with her Kentucky victory. What would people be saying then? The angst would be palpable - Super D's far and wide would be on the phone, comparing notes, wondering how to save the party from the obvious disaster of a Barack nomination. And they would find a way out.

That's not how the story played out, as it turns out, but consider how easily it could have. Which means that Hillary was right to keep going.

And, it means she's got a good point that democrats can't ignore - they've got a problem with the Barack candidacy. If all it would have taken would have been a few point swing in Oregon for the party to be suffering palpitations, then certainly they should be very concerned even with Barack winning Oregon.

How many nominees can you recall who got beat so regularly long after everyone knew that the race was over?

05/20/2008 - 9:12pm
A nice post from Kevin Whalen at Pundit Review today on Barack and his proposed windfall profits tax. By some measures, it seems, Big Oil hasn't been going particularly hard on us:
The price of the commodity that “Big Oil” relies on has risen nearly 7X since 2002, yet the price of the product they deliver to the consumer is only up 3X. Seems to me they must be very well run businesses to pull that off. After all, it is not as though “Big Oil” is making consumers pay so they can have massive profit margins...
Kevin quotes CNN's Paul Lamonica, who points out that Google's net profits are running 3 times higher than the S&P 500's energy sector. "Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?" Lamonica asks?
05/20/2008 - 10:00am
A column in the liberal blog DailyKos suggests Al Gore as the perfect running mate for Barack. How revealing! Why do they suggest Al?

Gore's stature in America and the world would... lend Obama's new administration instant credibility. It would also tell people, especially in Washington, that Obama was supremely confident, that he was unafraid of being overshadowed by the last Democratic winner of a presidential election, a two-term vice president, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

It's hard to imagine that Gore would do such a thing - he's got money, popularity and power, so a return to the second fiddle position seems extremely unlikely. But here's what I find interesting about this suggestion: It's a great one.

Al Gore makes strategic sense for Barack because:
  1. His experience would compensate for Barack's lack thereof.
  2. His maturity corrects for Barack being too young for the job.
What's significant about this suggestion, coming from a blog that's totally devoted to getting Barack elected, is that it reveals an uneasiness over Barack - it suggests an understanding that he's not ready to be president. With Al Gore as his Siamese twin, the democratic ticket would be credible in a way that Barack the candidate is not.

Does John McCain need someone to give him
"instant credibility." Nope. He's credible all by himself. Would Hillary Clinton? Nope. Would anyone be worried about demonstrations of confidence from the new president if he were McCain or Hillary? Or course not.

If you need a vice president to make your top of the ticket credible, you've got the wrong man at the top of the ticket.
05/19/2008 - 9:54pm
Barack is trying to play the tough, protective Harry Truman type, telling republicans that it's not appropriate to go after Michelle:
The Illinois senator was responding to an online ad run by the Tennessee GOP that, during a four-minute video, replays six times Michelle Obama's comment that "for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country."
But Michelle has been a busy, outspoken proponent of Barack's candidacy and his philosophy. She's not Rose Kennedy having teas:
Obama said that if he wins the nomination, Republicans "can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record. But, he added, "if they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful, because I find unacceptable the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."
It's a good performance, but one that's misplaced. A candidate's wife is going to take some heat when she's cooking in this kind of kitchen:
“We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know, people sitting at different tables — you all living in different dorms. I was there.

“You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community. Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That’s America. So the challenge for us is, are we ready for change?”

The man from hope can bob and weave with the best of them. Here's the video:

05/19/2008 - 7:24pm
I've been listening to democrats for a long time, as you have, preach about how evil it is to stereotype people. Individuals should be judged on their own merits, and trying to minimize their significance or demean them by assigning labels is against the 10 Commandments of the PC Bible.

But yesterday, there was Barack, attacking John McCain's ties to lobbyists in his big Oregon speech, and saying:
his campaign did not take money from PACs or federal lobbyists and.... he would have meetings on C-SPAN rather (than) behind closed doors with lobbyists “in their Gucci shoes.”
What exactly is Barack implying here - that people who dress well and buy nice clothes are elitists? Is this just a way to stereotype republicans as part of an evil, wealthy ruling class?

I thought that it was time for a new kind of politics, one based on hope, not nastiness.

My bad.
05/19/2008 - 12:54pm

Now we’re talking.


Barack and McCain are mixing it up, with Barack throwing his ‘business as usual’ accusations at the Arizona Senator, and McCain responding with Barack’s bizarre choice of friends:

…it does appear that over the last several weeks John McCain keeps on having problems with his top advisers being lobbyists -- in some cases for foreign governments or other big interests that are doing business in Washington," the Democrat said. "That I don’t think represents the kind of change that the American people are looking for."

McCain went for the jugular on this barb, raising the issue of Barack hanging around with supporters who once bombed buildings in a war against their own government:

(McCain spokesman Tucker) Bounds said that "just a few years ago when Barack Obama was beginning his career in politics he was launching it at the home of William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist who his chief strategist said Senator Obama was certainly friendly with. If Barack Obama is going to make associations the issue, we look forward to the debate about Senator Obama's associations and what they say about his judgment and readiness to be commander in chief."

In the eyes of liberals, George Bush is worse than Jeremiah Wright. In the eyes of liberals, there’s nothing wrong with accepting political support and serving on boards with a guy who’s disappointed that when he was young and foolish he didn’t make more attacks against the United States.


Liberals hire unrepentant bombers to be college professors and are shocked that you’d hold his early career decisions against him. So what if he was a member of the Weathermen?


It’s fun to hear McCain being this tough on Obama, but it may be that McCain is playing into Barack’s hands, that it’s his intention to have McCain firing these rounds early in the campaign. He knows it’s going to be on the table, so why not have at it now when fewer people are caring. Then, when McCain tries to bring up Barack’s bomber friends up in the fall, he can claim a ‘been there, done that’ on McCain.


Nevertheless, I don't think McCain has any choice but to start defining Barack now as the oddball leftist that he is, just as he's being defined as a continuation of George Bush.

05/19/2008 - 12:34pm
This is the future according to Barack:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

How brutally condescending. We're pigs, and an embarrassment to Barack in his sophisticated, elite international circles, but he can fix us.


In Obama's vision of America, other countries make the rules. American prowess, productivity and consumption are things to be ashamed of. This statement positions Barack on the outside looking in, judging us as if he’s a Frenchman upset that we don’t speak his language better.


How about an unleashing of great American creativity? How about saying, “as it gets more expensive to use fossil fuels, as it becomes increasingly unacceptable to leave ourselves at the mercy of those who sell us oil, it is incumbent upon us to develop alternative ways to power our cars and to heat our homes?”


Barack steps on the landmine of liberalism when he makes statements like this, just as he sets off bombs of his own when he defends relationships with the Bill Ayers’, Jeremiah Wrights and Tony Rezkos in his life.


This statement is nourished in the soil of Michelle’s never having been proud of America before. McCain must pounce and close the walls in around Barack.


Its not enough to point out the Bill Ayers relationship. It must be used to demonstrate what it means to be a liberal, and then to demonstrate the degree to which Barack is one of these odd creatures.


He stayed in the church all those years because he had no problem with what he heard.

He didn’t instinctively realize the need to separate from Reverend Wright for his presidential run because in his heart he sees nothing wrong.


He didn’t object to serving on a board with Bill Ayers, terrorist, because Ayers helped get Barack’s political career launched. He didn’t see a problem with Ayers doing that because in liberal circles, there's nothing wrong with rewarding America’s enemies with jobs teaching kids at major universities. That’s just the way it is.


Meanwhile, 75,000 Oregonians are estimated to have turned out for a Barack speech yesterday. As awesome a feat as this is for a politician to achieve, even one who kids love, I expect that it will start working against Obama if he’s going to wacko land to draw the crowds. When you hear 75K you’re impressed, then you hear where it is and you say, “oh. Of course. Oregon."

Syndicate content