05/10/2008 - 3:35am
What is Hillary up to? Not getting ready to be Barack's running mate, at least not in the mind of Ted Kennedy, who seems to think the idea is ridiculous:

Kennedy, 76, without naming names, said Obama should pick a running mate who ``is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people.''

``If we had real leadership -- as we do with Barack Obama -- in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful,'' Kennedy said.


Hillary's camp had earlier been non-committal on the notion of the VP slot, but the campaign spokesman now says it's not in the card:
Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign's communications director, denied that she is interested in the vice president spot.

"She said that's not something she would accept," Wolfson told "GMA."
So what is Hillary up to? Campaigning hard. Her campaign Chairman, Terry McAuliffe, scoffed at Barack's plan to declare the race over on May 20:
McAuliffe said Obama can celebrate all he wants that night, but there is no official nominee until someone gets 2,025 delegates -- or in the calculation of the Clinton camp, 2,209 delegates, if the disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan are counted.
Despite news reports over the past couple of days that this is a campaign that's only going through the motions, that doesn't seem to be the case:
The Clinton camp this morning also released a "Dear Fellow Democrats" letter from 16 US House members supporting her that reinforces her argument that she would be the stronger nominee in what is likely to be a very close November election because she is winning primaries in key battleground states and is winning among blue-collar swing voters.
Not convinced that Hillary's game plan remains unchanged?
The cash-strapped Clinton campaign announced it is airing a TV ad in West Virginia, site of the next primary on Tuesday.
Where is she getting the money to keep going? Perhaps she's counting on getting help paying off her campaign debts from Barack, and she's spending the money now that she doesn't have in order to convince him to give it to her.

Or maybe she believes that this race isn't over.
05/09/2008 - 12:24pm
Can we clarify something here: White voters are a voting block, a demographic breakdown of the American electorate, just as black voters, hispanic voters or rural voters are. There is nothing unusual or inappropriate about pointing out who is winning a particular block of voters.

Hillary has created a minor furor by making an argument for her own candidacy that points out that she is a more viable general election candidate because white voters support her.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

This is a serious problem for democrats, which you'll see if you examine the numbers in my previous post - democrats don't win the white vote, and that's why they don't win the White House. This is not compensated for by Barack's large black vote - he gets 90% - as all democratic nominees get in the 88% range. It's required to be competitive.
Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.
Wait a second - what blunt remarks? She didn't say anything about race! Hillary was doing a demographic reality check for her party - I'm the one who can win because I can get mainstream voters to vote for me!!! Barack can't.

Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton's comment was a "poorly worded" variation on the way analysts have been "slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms."

However, he said her primary support doesn't prove she's more electable. Either Democrat will get "the vast majority" of the other's primary election votes in a general election, he said.

That's not the point, Larry. Hillary is highlighting an underlying flaw in the Barack candidacy. Again, look at the voting blocks that John Kerry got, and in most cases, Barack does worse than Kerry. Its not just whites, but Barack does poorly with hispanics!
Obama gets 37% of white voters, Kerry took 41%
Obama gets 91% of blacks, but Kerry took 88%
Obama gets 51% of hispanics, but Kerry got 53%
Obama gets 36% of regular churchgoers, but Kerry got 39%
Obama gets 47% of white women, but Kerry got 51%
Barack ties Kerry among white men.

This is the reason democrats love illegal immigration - it brings folks in who fit into voting blocks that they tend to win. They oppose common sense voting requirements like showing an id at the polls for the same reason. The less sophisticated, the less educated or the less successful you are, the more likely you are to vote for democrats.

So why the big deal about white voters? Well, you know the answer to that. You
run afoul of the PC Police if you talk like that. This is part of the game the democratic party plays to keep minority voters in the fold.

Check out this racial divide columnist in Florida:

Racists should decide the Democratic nomination.

Not the superdelegates or pledged delegates, but those who will refuse to vote for a black man in November should decide.

Sen. Hillary Clinton didn't use those words in an interview with USA Today, but she came close.

Having a hair trigger on the race baiting gun is, of course, divisive and promotes bigotry, but that's how the democrats build their business.
05/08/2008 - 6:17pm
Is there any reason for the GOP to be depressed? Sure. George W.'s apparent lack of concern for things that matter most to Americans is likely to lead to further slippage in congress.

On the other hand, the Democrats are preparing to ordain the new and improved John Kerry as their nominee for 2008. Let's party!

Take a look at some numbers from Gallup comparing how similarly Obama and Kerry perform among key demographic groups.

Obama gets 37% of white voters, Kerry took 41%
Obama gets 91% of blacks, but Kerry took 88%
Obama gets 51% of hispanics, but Kerry got 53%
Obama gets 36% of regular churchgoers, but Kerry got 39%
Obama gets 47% of white women, but Kerry got 51%
Barack ties Kerry among white men.

Each presidential campaign takes place in a new and different environment, with a new cast of characters and issues. If, as expected, Obama wins the Democratic nomination this year, the campaign will have an even more distinctive newness to it, as Obama would represent the first black major-party candidate in the country's history.

Still, the analysis reviewed here suggests that the basic structure of an Obama-McCain campaign is in many ways quite similar to that of the 2004 race between Kerry and Bush.

At the moment, Gallup Poll Daily tracking indicates that this November's election could be close, as has been the popular vote in 2000 and 2004. In other words, just as 2004 was in many ways a replay of 2000, this year's election could be a replay of 2004 with minor changes around the edges.

Certainly the current data show that the patterns of support for Obama when he is pitted against McCain -- among various key racial, educational, religious, and gender groups -- do not look like they have changed dramatically from the 2004 contest between Kerry and Bush.

Obama's stengths are with people who have a college education and beyond.
Kerry and Bush tied among college graduates in 2004. In Gallup Poll Daily tracking, Obama wins by 50% to 44% among college graduates. Among those with postgraduate educations, Kerry won over Bush by 55% to 44%, or 11 points. Obama is beating McCain by 57% to 38%, or 19 points among this group. The comparative data certainly suggest that Obama actually has a relative strength among well-educated voters.
05/08/2008 - 12:34pm
If Hillary is so over, then why is she still standing? What's going on here?
Writes the New York Times:
On what was probably one of the toughest days of her campaign so far, with pundits and analysts of all stripes declaring her presidential candidacy finished, Mrs. Clinton put on her battle face Wednesday and confronted what was at times a hostile crowd at a hastily arranged speech here at Shepherd University.
Could it be that she wants the VP spot and she's holding out for a deal? George Stephanopoulos, on ABC World News last night, says yes:
There are various exit strategies right now. Number one would be, go out on a win. So, stay in until West Virginia, where Sen. Clinton is likely the winner, and Kentucky on May 20, and after that, bow out... But the big one, Charlie, and this is what some people close to the Clintons are talking about: Is there a way to negotiate a settlement with Barack Obama to have Sen. Clinton on the ticket?
If this fails, if Hillary can't get the number two slot for herself, she may want some say over who gets the gig - perhaps to make sure its someone who won't be a future threat for the presidency?

There's already talk that she'll be negotiating for help retiring her campaign debt. Barack could do that much faster than the Clintons can, but on the other hand, the Clintons can certainly get it done.

Most important to Hillary, I suspect, will be her stature in Congress. Back to yesterday in West Virginia:

Mrs. Clinton endured boos when she mentioned her proposal for a gasoline tax holiday, catcalls when she spoke of ending the Iraq war and, most difficult of all, the heckling of her daughter, Chelsea, who introduced her.

“End the dynasty!” a young man holding an Obama poster shouted when Chelsea Clinton stepped to the microphone.

Well, okay. The Bill Clinton dynasty may be over, but maybe Hillary wants to build one of her own. It just may be that in 10 or 15 years, the world will look back at this moment as the birth of Hillary. That process will start with getting back to work in the U.S. Senate with an eye toward becoming the next Ted Kennedy - the person who is considered the best at being a liberal senator.

Perhaps she wants to be Barack's point man on health care?
05/07/2008 - 8:57pm
The closest thing to George McGovern to happen to Democrats in the past 35 years is Barack Obama, so it's some sort of poetic justice that the guy who won only one state way back when, the 1972 candidate of hope, is stepping forward to help out another Hopeful Hoper:
Clinton showed no sign of surrender in the presidential race, but former Sen. George McGovern, the party's 1972 presidential candidate, urged her to reconsider.
Yup - the original anti-war candidate has offered his endorsement for the guy who is so against the war in Iraq that he actually gave a speech against it several years ago. (Where is Barack's Profiles in Courage award?) Word of McGovern's intervention must have pulled the entire Clinton family to the breakfast table to consider the implications as they gulped down their Cheerio's.

McGovern said he had a call in to former President Clinton to tell him of the decision, adding that he remains close friends with the Clintons.
"I will hold them in affection and admiration all of my days," he said of the Clintons.
It must be very depressing to have democrats for friends. George McGovern, Bill Richardson, Joe Andrew, etc... the minute the going gets tough, they can't wait to throw you under the Barus.

McGovern's announcement comes a day before Clinton was scheduled to travel to South Dakota to campaign. The state holds its primary June 3 with 15 pledged delegates at stake.

McGovern said he had no regrets about endorsing Hillary Clinton months ago, even before the Iowa caucuses.

"She has run a valiant campaign. And she will remain an influential voice in the American future," he said.

Meanwhile, the Obama camp is already releasing the names of superdelegates committed to Barack, as it seeks to continue the big mo established last night.
Barack Obama pocketed the support of at least four Democratic convention superdelegates on Wednesday, building on the momentum from a convincing North Carolina primary victory. Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton disclosed she had loaned her strapped campaign an additional $6.4 million in recent weeks.
Yup, Barack only lost by a little last night, and for democrats these day, that's what they call a big win.
05/07/2008 - 6:58pm
Listen to me and my friend Kevin Whalen of Pundit Review analyze yesterday's primary results in Indiana and North Carolina. We got up extra early to tape this for you after Kevin accidentally deleted the podcast we did for you last night!
05/07/2008 - 12:40pm
It is disappointing and hard to face the reality that the fun is over.

Not that Hillary won't continue her march to the convention, but because the party will view Barack's poor night as a good night - one in which his deterioration has been slowed.

Phew! said the party last night. Now we don't have to actually take Hillary's claim that Barack is unelectable seriously. Relieved that Barack's weakness didn't result in a further eroding of his credibility, they move on more confidently, with a little less nervousness in their gait.

Why was Barack's night poor? I'm looking at him as the front runner. I'm figuring that the guy who wins 90% of the black vote should win pretty big in a state with a disproportionately large black population. I'm looking at his inability to win in Indiana, a state in which he has partial home field advantage, and I'm saying what's wrong with this candidate? I'm looking at a guy who had Hillary beat a couple of months ago, but he still finish her off. I'm looking at a guy who is the darling of the media, is the dream of the democratic party, and for some reason, he just can't win this thing.

Isn't the economy the most important issue? Look at these exit poll numbers:
THE ECONOMY: Two-thirds of Indiana Democratic primary voters said the economy is the most important issue facing the nation. Those voters favored Clinton, with 53 percent voting for the former first lady and 47 percent voting for Obama, according to exit poll results.
Hillary wins 70% of seniors in Indiana, and 60% of whites. Those are some big populations, whose impact is not reduced in a general election.

The black vote, of which Barack get 90%+, are a fixed number of voters, whose impact will be reduced in the general election.
Nearly half the voters in the Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries said the situation with Barack Obama‘s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was important to their vote. Most of them voted for Clinton: about seven in 10 in Indiana and six in 10 in North Carolina.
In North Carolina, Barack's bad news is covered up by the black vote:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won significant support among white Democratic voters. More than half of white men and nearly two-thirds of white women supported her in the Democratic primary.
More of the same from Fox News poll numbers:

In Indiana, white men went for Clinton 58 percent to 42 percent for Obama. In North Carolina, she won 54 percent of white men to 40 percent for Obama. Among white women, which made up 34 percent of the North Carolina vote, Clinton won 64 to 32 percent.
So, if Democrats are happy nominating a candidate who isn't the first choice of the majority blocks of democratic voters, who is not favored in national polls of democrats, then they should be very pleased that this process is winding down with Barack still hanging on.

For a bit there, democrats were getting scared enough to acknowledge that Barack is a flawed candidate. Now they'll move on blindly.

And we'll have to wait for fall for the truth to come out.

05/07/2008 - 4:05am
Hillary had a chance to steal the nomination from Barack on Tuesday. That didn't happen.

At the same time, it wasn't really possible. Barack generally gets about 90% of the black vote, and North Carolina Democrats are 38% black.
According to exit polling in that state Tuesday, Obama won 92 percent of the black vote, which made up 33 percent of the total vote. He did equally well with black women and men, no less than 90 percent each.
What should scare the party is the lack of support for Barack among white voters:

....Hillary Clinton continued to firm up her advantage among whites in both states.

In Indiana, white men are going for Clinton 58 percent to 42 percent for Obama. In North Carolina, she was also winning among this group 54 percent to 40 percent for Obama.

Among white women, which made up 34 percent of the North Carolina vote, Clinton won 64 to 32 percent.
She could have come up with a decisive in Indiana, and that didn't happen. She won though, still somewhat of a miracle in a state, parts of which, are a suburb of Barack's home state of Illinois.

The numbers behind the numbers continue to be the devastating news for the Democratic Party. They will go into a general election with a nominee who can't win the support of working class voters.
The trend linking Clinton with white voters with no college degree seems to be continuing in Indiana, according to the polls. In Indiana, 65 percent of these voters went for Clinton, 34 percent for Obama. In North Carolina, 67 percent of these voters went for Clinton, 26 percent for Obama.
Are Democrats self-destructing by failing to consider giving the nomination to Hillary?Here's more proof that Barack is a niche candidate:

As for lower-income voters in Indiana, those making less than $50,000 a year are going for for Clinton by 51 percent, while 48 percent went for Obama.

But Clinton also won among higher-income voters, besting Obama 51 percent to 48 percent among those making more than $50,000.

Only 16 percent of Indiana voters said that race played an important role in their vote today, and of them, 57 percent said they went for Clinton, while 43 percent went for Obama.

And, as in previous primary contests throughout the country, older voters are so far going hard for Clinton. In Indiana, 7 1 percent of senior citizens went for Clinton, while 29 percent went for Obama.

05/06/2008 - 1:08pm
Drudge is reporting that according to Clinton campaign insiders, they couldn't beat the demographics in North Carolina, where 38% of registered Dems are black. As you may have heard, Barack gets 90% of the black vote.
The state had been seen by Clinton insiders as the senator's last shot to seriously jolt the system and overshadow the math. With 115 delegates at stake, North Carolina posed an uphill battle for Clinton.

Obama easily carried the region in earlier voting, topping Clinton in Maryland by 23-points; Virginia by 29, South Carolina 28 and Georgia 36.
The campaign expects to lose by as much as 15% there, and will spend the day keeping the focus on Indiana.
05/06/2008 - 12:43pm
Are Hillary and Barack credible in their fight against the evils of big oil? No, says Boston Globe columnist Derrick Jackson, since they're both living well off of big oil's bucks:

When Exxon Mobil last week posted its second-highest quarterly profits ever, $10.9 billion, Clinton said, "This is truly Dick Cheney's wonderland. But on Main Street, middle class families are facing devastating choices every day between buying groceries and filling up their gas tanks . . . We need to set a new course for our long-term energy strategy and move away from oil."

Two days before Exxon's profits were announced, Obama said oil companies "are making billions and it's time we made them give back . . . what we're talking about now is a Washington con game, and I think the American people are smarter than Washington and will see right through it."

Unfortunately, it is easy to see through the posturing of Clinton and Obama. They need to do some gas rationing of their own.

Trouble is, Jackson says, Barack and Hillary are under the influence of big oil as they keep accepting big money from the big companies:
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McCain is still the overall leader in money from the oil and gas industry at $515,486. But Clinton and Obama are on their own slippery oil slopes, at $353,723 and, $266,097, respectively.
Why does this matter if all of Washington is taking this sort of money?
....the symbolism of Clinton replacing Pombo at the top of the Chevron food chain, Obama replacing the Alaska congressional delegation at the top of BP's charts and Obama being number two in current Exxon cash is ominous. How far would Clinton really go with energy "solutions," and how much would Obama actually "change" the oil-to-policy pipeline in Washington?
Is this what Obama means when he's talking about a Shell game?
Syndicate content