Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) is reportedly switching allegiances:
Confusion erupted Thursday night amid reports that a prominent African American supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s had changed his mind. Georgia Rep. John Lewis, who is also a Democratic superdelegate, was reported by the New York Times as having decided to switch his superdelegate vote from Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama after Lewis’s district, around Atlanta, went for the Illinois senator.
But the Clinton campaign reported having no word from Lewis on the subject, and a spokeswoman for Lewis, Brenda Jones, said the Times story and a similar one by the Associated Press, saying he was contemplating such a switch, were inaccurate. Both the Times and AP stories quoted Lewis directly after speaking with him; he was not available for comment later Thursday.
That’s bad news for Hillary and, I think, barring some incredible performance in the next primaries, that the Clinton campaign is effectively drawing to an end. Lewis’s switch, if in fact it’s true, is not surprising to me because I think it reflects a larger phenomena. In the beginning, Obama was just a charismatic young senator with a following that a lot of people probably didn’t think to take all that seriously. Now, people are seeing that there is quite a bit of substance behind that charisma that’s just not there in Clinton. As Obama continues to win and get more coverage, people are getting to know him better and are paying attention to him. And, of course, there’s the whole “not wanting to be on the losing side” thing.
As John noted earlier, Clinton is banking on the super delegates. They may not hang around long enough to be of much use.
dslak
It has been a bit humorous to see the Clinton campaign publicly state how they planned to win (we’ll win in closed primaries, we’ll win Latinos, we’ll win with superdelegates, etc.), only to see that strategy blown up in the next news cycle. Can Mark Penn not keep anything close to his chest?
Wilfred
If a picture tells a thousands then why oh why can’t I
Conservatively Liberal
I heard about this last night, and oh boy are the Hillbots at Hillaryis44.com pissed off about it. From what has been said, Hillary lost four super delegates yesterday, two women and two men, two are white (I guess that the women are old and white, Hillary’s demographic) and two are black.
This is exactly why the SD issue should not come in to play now. Hillary insisted on them being out front to show off her support, and now it is coming back to bite her royally. Watch, if enough SDs peel off, I bet we will start hearing about how Hillary is leading with the popular vote. That would be about all that is left for her to stand on if the defections grow.
The Lewis story is a go from what I have read elsewhere. TPM has a discussion about it there.
Conservatively Liberal
The ones that Hillary lost yesterday are:
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)
Roz Samuels
Rep. David Scott (D-GA)
Sophie Masloff of Pennsylvania and Nancy Larson of Minnesota both withdrew their endorsements of Hillary and are now uncommitted.
I have not found the name of the fourth person who was supposed to switch yesterday, but what we do know from the above is that Hillary may be in big trouble, especially if there are a large number of SD defections before Texas and Ohio.
Oh well, in the past, she hollered about counting every delegate NOW, which made her look better than Barack in total delegate count. If Barack pulls out front with the pledged and super delegates, will Hillary and her supporters then call for the removal of the SD totals if they make the gap between her and Barack look smaller? Watch, I bet they will.
I am noting that Hillbots are screaming ‘race!’ on many political forums and blogs in regards to Reps. Scott and Lewis switching to Obama. So here comes the race card, played by Hillary’s supporters but pointed at Barack and the black SDs who defect to him.
It is going to get real ugly if this keeps up. I see that Hillaryis44.com members are talking about moving out of the country if Obama wins. What a bunch of loonies.
Please Barack! There is more hanging on this race than your candidacy! You may be doing a service to America by helping to push a bunch of Hillbots out of the country. We will be forever indebted to you if you accomplish this! ;)
As noted earlier, I guess Penn’s description of the ‘automatic’ delegates shows that they are not so automatic. Some of them are manually changing gears on their own.
Oh, and expect to hear more about “virtual gang rape” of Hillary that the press and everyone is doing to her. The narrative for this seems to come from one ‘Sittin Bull’ on hillaryis44.com. I have seen the same name post the same phrase at TPM and a couple of other political sites.
So now Hillary is a rape victim. Oh, a virtual rape victim.
Hmm, victim politics. “Vote for me, I have been wronged!”
Get a life you idiots.
Buck
Well I guess it does make more sense now to call them super delegates as opposed to automatic delegates. Looks like there is nothing automatic about any of these votes.
I saw Obama referred to as being to the left of Ted Kennedy and Bernie Sanders this morning on three different morning news talk shows.
Looks like that is going to be the initial strategy for fighting him.
He is a black muslim communist who does not put his hand over his heart while singing the pledge of allegiance.
And if all of that is true I still wouldn’t vote for McCain’t.
Wilfred
Interesting how these changes of heart of some supers happens the day after Clinton brings them up. Seems like a slap in the face, no?
Napoleon
By who?
Nikki
Why do so many of the folks at hillaryis44.com sound like wingnuts? Are the Obamaniacs just as bad?
Xenos
I am not surprised about the “more left than Bernie Sanders” quote given that National Journal has published its psuedoscientific hit piece claiming this.
They did the same thing to John Kerry, by analyzing only those votes during the primary season when he was careful to not cast a vote that would outrage the left wing of the party, rather than analyzing a longer period of time.
On top of the cherry-picking of time sequences, the National Journal calculations include a huge fudge factor that allows them to weight different votes as they see fit:
You can get whatever answer you want with this kind of analysis. What they want is to get public recognition from their insignificant little wonky newsletter, and the networks love the faux-centrist Broderian cover that the ‘scientific’ process lends this transparantly stupid bit of analysis.
jj
The SS Hillary continues to take on water.
Yay.
Welcome to Davy Jones’ locker Hil.
zzyzx
Here’s what I was talking about when I said that Obama could lose the popular vote in TX and still win more delegates.
However, if he’s only down 8 points 2 1/2 weeks early, it’s quite likely that he’ll be in the lead come March. Win Texas and it’s over.
fbeuks
@ Conservatively Liberal:
It’s my understanding that, even including MI and FL, Clinton no longer leads the popular vote.
I really hope this campaign is the end of Mark Penn’s a-list-Democratic-campaign career. Good riddance.
p.lukasiak
the most interesting part of this story is that its getting so much play DESPITE the fact that it has been denied by Lewis’ official spokesperson.
the other most interesting part of the story is that no one is talking about how the Obama campaign is playing the race card with black lawmakers and threatening them… this kind of tactic would have been the lede in a story about Hillary….but gets buried by the AP and the rest of the media… (h/t to Taylor Marsh)
but I get IOKIYAO ….
dslak
P.luk, when did Jesse Jackson join Obama’s campaign?
TheFountainHead
Maybe it’s the coffee, maybe it was Olbermann’ Special Comment last night, or maybe it’s Josh Marshall’s take on Lewis, but I’m feeling almost chipper this morning. It’s scary.
TheFountainHead
Fix’t.
Wilfred
Well, we’ll all feel sad when we don’t have Hillary to kick around anymore. Until then, how’s that “I was against Nafta’ thing going down in Ohio?
Jen
Maybe that’s trumped by the fact that Lewis himself said it…?
myiq2xu
Ironically, the use of the term “playing the race card” is inaccurate here but at the same time appropriate.
The term was coined during the OJ Simpson trial when OJ’s defense team argued that he was framed for murder by a racist cop.
IOW – OJ claimed racism to explain the evidence produced against him. Robert Shapiro was quoted as saying that Johnnie Cochran not only played the race card, but that he dealt it from the bottom of the deck.
So the term has been misused because “playing the race card” is a defensive tactic. But it is appropriate because the race card is being used by Obama supporters who scream racism to deflect legitimate criticism of him.
dslak
Lewis only said that because Obambi paid Jesse Jackson to hold a gun to his back and make him say it! Misogyny!
dslak
Yes, and some Hillary supporters scream misogyny to deflect criticism of Hilllary. In either case, all it proves is that there are morons and assholes among both Hillary and Obama supporters, and if you didn’t already know that, it’s not as if you would find this fact convincing, anyway.
p.lukasiak
P.luk, when did Jesse Jackson join Obama’s campaign?
wow, you obamabots just see what you want to see, don’t you?
lets try it again, shall we…
and by the way, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. isn’t just an Obama supporter (as stated in the article which buried this information), he’s Obama’s national co-chair.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your adoration of The MUP…
myiq2xu
Could he have been saying that he is still endorsing Hillary but will cast his SD vote in accordance with the will of the voters he represents?
If so, will Kennedy and Kerry do the same?
TheFountainHead
Two exquisitely cut gems for you this morning, mined from hillaryis44.com:
I r ‘bama zombie! I R ZOMBAMA!
Wait….what?
Pan American
Same for noquarterusa.net and taylormarsh.com.
I think the online strategy was to astroturf with nasty toned postings and cage potential volunteers and donors. (Bill’s campaign in ’92 was most effective in drying up funding for everyone else.) Now they’re stuck with the loons in the echo chambers.
No. There are some bozos but not like that. You can find some pretty interesting nuts & bolts number crunching & inside politics stuff in Obamabot diaries at the GOS.
TheFountainHead
I think he may be saying exactly that. As for Kerry and Kennedy, I’d imagine that you would have to ask them.
myiq2xu
They never do. Some pro-Obama websites are scrubbing posts critical of Obama.
myiq2xu
Tell us something we don’t know
Jen
It’s certainly possible, but if I were going to endorse someone while voting against them, I would probably take pains to clarify that. Because when you leave it at just:
…it doesn’t look so much like it.
BTW, the imputation of any Obama supporter’s tactics, be it race card or anything else, to Obama’s campaign is simply ridiculous. I don’t know how many supporters he has, but he has over 4 million donors. Some of them are bound to say something stupid.
TheFountainHead
I hear aliens landed on the 405 Freeway last night. I’ll back up mine if you back up yours.
Okay. If Hillary loses this nomination, I lose $500. About a year and a half ago I bet my father $500 that Hillary would be the President of the United States in 2009. So yeah, I may be a Zombama (I like it, much better than Obamaniac), but not because I didn’t think about it long and hard first.
RareSanity
Right…so female SD’s are not going to to be told “You don’t want to stand in the way of Hillary being the first woman President, do you?”
P.Luk, your constant debate about how the Obama campaign is “just as bad” as the Clinton campaign is starting to get old. We are talking about the Clintons, we have not yet seen the depths to which they are willing to sink for Hillary.
Mind you, before this whole election thing, I was a staunch supporter of everything Clinton.
Now, I just want them to go away.
myiq2xu
Are we now holding the candidates responsible for everything said by their (alleged) supporters?
While it may be amusing (or disturbing) to read comments posted at blogs that are openly biased for one or another candidate, there is a difference between ranting or blowing off steam among friends and offering those same comments as a supposedly cogent argument in the context of a debate.
There is also a difference between an impersonal comment among a group of like minded people (“Those people at X are so stupid”) and a personal attack on someone in the same thread (“You are so stupid.”)
And as TZ has pointed out, there are many spoofs and trolls about these days. Sometimes the trolls seem to outnumber the real people.
My personal belief is that there are a number of wingnut trolls infesting the lefty blogs, posing as Hillary and Obama supporters so they can stir up trouble between the two groups.
p.lukasiak
please.
Joe Wilson was a hero of the progressive movement, and while I was disappointed when he endorsed Hillary (back when I was rooting for Edwards), the obamabots vilified him furiously — and have been demonizing him ever since.
The same goes for just about anyone who has declared their support for Hillary. I personally think that Larry Johnson is over the top with some of his Obama criticisms, but the same cannot be said people like Paul Krugman and Taylor Marsh — who have never been afraid to criticize Clinton in the past, but who have been endlessly vilified by Obama supporters.
Now, this is not to say that all Obama supporters are cultists — but for a very long time, Obamaniacs have been all over the comments sections of the most prominent blogs. And unlike most Clinton supporters, one seldom sees an Obama supporter who recognizes his flaws.
TheFountainHead
I’ll give you Krugman–maybe–but Taylor Marsh, absolutely not. Completely off the deep end, just as bad as Sully if not worse.
John S.
Project much?
Or how about this, before you worry about the splinter in an Obama supporter’s eye, remove first the plank from your own.
p.lukasiak
Right…so female SD’s are not going to to be told “You don’t want to stand in the way of Hillary being the first woman President, do you?”
when you actually have some evidence of that happening, get back to me. Until then, please deal with the fact that Obama’s national co-chair is overtly using race to pressure black supporters of Hillary Clinton, rather than doing the “the Clintons are worse” song and dance in response to every story that suggests that Obama is not Mr. “New Kind of Politics”.
p.lukasiak
wow. Why do you think I was supporting Edwards? The idea that I’m uncritical of Hillary Clinton is projection on your part. I’m fully aware of the fact that she’s unlikely to pursue the kind of progressive agenda that I’d like to see, that she’s been running for President from the minute she entered the Senate — and has betrayed progressive causes along the way, blah, blah, blah….
The SOLE reason I support Hillary right now is that she’s the lesser of two evils. When this campaign started, I was an “anyone-but-Hillary” type. If it was Dodd, or Edwards, or Biden, or Richardson running against Clinton, I’d be supporting them. But when it got down to three candidates, and it became obvious that the Edwards campaign was not adjusting to what was happening, I took a long, hard look at both Hillary and Obama to see who my second choice would be. And Hillary was the obvious choice.
John S.
According to you.
According to you.
But I stopped taking anything you had to say seriously once you started peddling that automatic delegates crap not more than 24 hours after the order to call the superdelegates thus emanated from the Hillary campaign.
You have already tipped your hand. You’re not just a mere Hillary supporter, you’re a Hillary hack. Your views carry about as much weight with me as Mark Penn’s do.
RareSanity
Political pressure is political pressure. That’s why the term used to describe what the candidates are engaging he SD’s with is being called lobbying, courting, or wooing. Regardless of what “pressure” is being applied, it is being done. Do you not think that Hillary is using the mechanizations of the Democratic Party establishment to apply ridiculous amounts of pressure to SD’s? How would holding a person’s progression in the party over their head possibly sway their vote? If you don’t think that kind of thing is going on you are naive.
My point is, to sit here and say, “See, here’s another example of the press hiding something negative against Obama.” is to imply that Hillary is not playing “dirty pool” herself. So accept that they both are and stop trying to paint either one as better/worse than the other.
Pb
p.lukasiak,
I’m planning on voting for Obama, so here was my question regarding Joe Wilson’s recent column:
No one answered me there; do you know why?
I found myself in the same position, but made the opposite call. Pretty much everything that I have learned or seen since has vindicated that choice for me. So what was so bad about Obama / good about Hillary here? I wasn’t seeing it, but I’m interested in what you found.
RareSanity
And furthermore….What John S. Said.
John S.
As Atrios said today:
Between that and all the Clinton supporters turning to right-wing tactics (all criticism is CDS, Hillary’s positions are justifiable because Obama did it too) in addition to actually linking to and distributing wingnut talking points has turned me off to the point where I will really have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary if it comes down to that.
If her campaign and supporters keep it up, they may encourage me to just stay home – a thought which a mere week ago hadn’t even crossed my mind.
p.lukasiak
I’ll give you Krugman—maybe—but Taylor Marsh, absolutely not. Completely off the deep end, just as bad as Sully if not worse.
Taylor is passionate, but she’s not in Sully’s (or Larry J’s) class.
And I’ve criticized her for cheap shots at Obama — like featuring that video of Obama supporters being asked to name one accomplishment of Obama. That was a pure gotcha moment — legislators (unlike governors, mayors, etc) don’t “accomplish” things per se, they support them. Luntz then badgered the group, not even giving most of them a chance to formulate an answer, and then he and Hume triumphantly concluded that Obama’s supporters were basically idiots.
But Marsh provides a key service… she’s a one stop shop for stuff that the media (and John Cole) refuses to cover because it makes Obama look bad — stuff that, if it had been Hillary, the media (and Cole) would have been all over. Some of the stuff is bogus (like the whole ‘Obama interfered in the Kenya campaign’ stuff — and even worse, that he ‘interfered on behalf of a cousin with ties to Jihadists’) but most of it is legitimate.
(and it should be noted that the bogus stuff that is coming out — like Rezko’s ties to some syrian millionaire — should not be ignored by Obama’s supporters, because the minute he looks like a lock for the nomination, all this crap will become fodder for right-wing radio, and much of it will find its way into the mainstream media. I mean, if the Swift Boat campaign was able to raise questions about Kerry’s heroism and war record, imagine how easy its going to be for the GOP smear machine to define Obama in the terms they want to.)
myiq2xu
First of all, do you really think that Hillary controls the Democratic party? If she did, Obama would never have run against her. He is as much the “establishment” candidate as she is, with powerful friends and big money donors.
Many of the SD’s are either elected officials who have risen as high as they will likely go, like Senators and senior members of the House, or are retired, which means their political careers are over anyway.
I really doubt Chelsea Clinton is calling SD’s to make threats.
Blue Jean
Oh, so we’re all supposed to play by the Clinton Rules now? Everything that the Clintons say or do is given the most evil meaning possible, but nothing negative must touch the MUP?
I knew that disease had infected the Republicans for a long time. Too bad it’s spread to the Democrats.
TheFountainHead
I’m sorry, p.luk, but what has Taylor Marsh brought to our attention that is a legitimate scandal for Obama? All I’ve ever heard from her or the scary scary people at hillaryis44.com is the utterly bogus Rezko bag and the also utterly trumped up Kenya interference meme. Care to link me to anything that any real journalist would back up as real?
TheFountainHead
Do you really think her husband doesn’t?
John S.
That’s utter nonsense.
You may argue that Obama isn’t an outsider (and I would agree with you), but to put him on the same footing as Clinton in terms of ‘establishment’ is just nonsense.
Please myiq2xu, I have come to respect you for being an independent thinker, articulating thoughtful support for Clinton. Don’t start spouting off Clinton campaign talking points like p.lukasiak here and tarnish my view.
Jen
I’d like to call a time-out on this important and easily-proven “whose nutroots are worse” debate to link to an interesting article about TX delegates.
Okay, I can’t resist just one tiny nutty nutroots, do read the first comment from GrannyT (anyone want to bet she’s a white lady over 50? Anyone?)
OxyCon
————–
Where?
Where’s the substance?
RareSanity
Balderdash! The point I was making was that P.Luk is always coming up with these look at what Obama is doing and that everyone here “Can’t handle the truth.” about Obama.
Criticism of Obama is fine, I have no problem with it at all. But, I cannot deal with a Hillary fanboy trying to characterize anyone that doesn’t support Hillary as an Obama fanboy. There are shades of gray.
jj
It’s funny, I know exactly TWO black people who are planning to vote for Hillary (my aunt and my buddy’s wife) and I’ve seen the same question put to them on several occasions.
Meh.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
Go read this piece for a start. Quote:
p.lukasiak
Well, I hate to repeat the latest Hillary meme, but it pretty much sums up my feelings. Our nation needs to be “fixed”, rather than just “changed” — and Hillary has the knowledge and skills to do that. I don’t see anything in Obama’s background that shows that he understands how government (as opposed to running for office) actually works. Hillary’s experience makes her far more likely to navigate the treacherous waters that lie ahead — Bush is going to leave this nation a complete mess, both at home, and abroad, and Hillary is better suited to cleaning up that mess.
I guess the bottom line is that Obama turned out to be a cypher…. someone with the potential to be a great president, but also someone who could be a complete disaster for the nation, and the party. (I’ve always said that in eight — or even four — years, I’d probably be happy to support Obama. But right now, I don’t want to take any chances)
Finally, there is the question of electability. When all is said and done, Clinton is electable — but Obama remains a question mark. We saw what happened when the media turned on John Kerry, we know what the GOP smear machine is capable of…. and despite Obama’s claim that the Clinton campaign ‘threw everything they had at him’, Clinton has in fact run a remarkably “clean” campaign — cleaner, in many ways, than Obamas. (I suspect that a lot of the crap that is coming out now is stuff that the Clinton camp didn’t use…. but I can’t tell if its coming from the Clinton camp itself, or is part of the GOP slime machine’s efforts to define Obama because he’s looking like the nominee.)
Jen
Oh yes, let’s go through round #3948290348 of explaining this, please, from people who think if you aren’t boring people to tears then you must not actually want to do anything.
Sinister eyebrow
Well, with the polls showing that TX is within 8 points (while Obama campaigns in WI) and Obama not starting to campaign in earnest in PA or OH yet (I think), this isn’t looking good for Clinton.
Pretty exciting to watch it develop from the irrelevant sideline of North Carolina. I don’t think Clinton is going to get the blowout she needs in OH and TX, especially if SEIU goes for Obama. After that it’s only a question of whether she chooses a graceful exit, or a slow and undignified bunch of thrashing around on her way out. Although, I could be wrong and she’ll have enough to keep going but it looks like a fading hope.
Jen
o.m.g.
Jen
/raises hand
Ooh, I know! Pick me!
TheFountainHead
A comment on the Jesse Jackson Jr. thing:
After reading the whole thing, and Jackson’s own position, there are two realities here. First, Jesse Jackson Jr. is a bigger hothead than his father and interested in soundbytes more than just about anything else. Second, he’s absolutely right about the position that Cleaver, Lewis, and I suspect a lot of black Super-Delegates are in. Their constituents are largely black and have likely voted overwhelmingly for Obama. As politicians, their first job is to get re-elected and retain the support of the people who got them there, otherwise they are ineffective politicians. Voting against Obama, therefore, is not racially or socially tricky, it’s politically tricky for them. If you’re a senator and a Super-Delegate and you’re sitting on a congressional district that voted very heavily one way or another, you’re going to have to think long and hard before bucking that.
Like I said, Jesse Jackson Jr. is largely not worth listening to and his association with the Obama campaign is likely more the unfortunate result of his father’s influence in the African American political scene than it is any real affection for the man on Obama’s part, but I can’t speak to that. Still, the point he’s making is a political one because of racial politics, not a racial one to spite politics.
RareSanity
What knowledge and skills are those exactly?
What “experience” is that?
How is she better suited?
How so?
What do you base this opinion on?
jj
Pluk,
While I don’t doubt you believe what you write, I can’t help but question why.
If Obama weren’t running (and the Clinton’s hadn’t recently shown us their really ugly side) I would have happily voted for a Clinton/Edwards ticket, despite my misgivings about Hillary’s Republican-liteness.
With Obama in the race, I now have the opportunity to vote FOR a candidate who not only has the right ideas, but doesn’t have Hillary’s baggage and has shown much better judgement than she has on issue that matter to me (like not voting for that shitty war, and then refusing to admit she erred)
But we’ve been over this over, and over, and over again right here on these boards, with Hillary supporters making somewhat spurious claims about Obama’s experience.
It’s tired and is easily debunked with mimimal research if one cared to look.
I will sum my position up as such.
Both Hillary and Obama are emininently qualified to be President, but Obama IMO has shown better judgement than Hillary since being elected to the Senate. He has also shown the ability to draw-in voters other than hardcore Blue bleedin’ Dems like us. His record in the Illinois State legislature illustrates that this is not a fluke, but a major characteristic of the way he practices politics.
This, I believe is what we are going to need to ‘Fix’ America and where Hillary, comes up way short.
Cults of personality aside (all the candidates have them), I think the voters, even the low information voters, are keen to this and why Obama is gaining traction while Clinton loses more ground every day.
Billy K
The Magical Unity Pony is pretty. It is my favorite pony, with a long, silky mane and glittery eyes. I love the Magical Unity Pony. Why does Mrs. Hillary want to kill my favorite, favorite pony??? She is so mean!1! :(
p.lukasiak
Fountainhead… that’s why I used the phrase “one stop shop” in reference to Marsh’s site. The whole “donations to superdelegates” story has been buried (Josh Marshall never mentioned it — you have to read Greg Sargent’s blog on the TPM site, and its just the one entry), as has the “Jesse Jackson Jr.” story. (Again, Marshall wrote extensively about the Lewis supposed change of heart, didn’t mention the denials from Lewis’s spokesperson, and IGNORED the Jackson story — its only linked to in a sidebar.)
Marsh makes sure that this stuff is getting headlined… neither the mainstream media, nor previously reliable sites like TPM, are doing that anymore.
TheFountainHead
/boggle
The man taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. I think he knows how government works.
Sojourner
You sound positively unhinged. What is the matter with you?
Pb
p.lukasiak,
It seems your complaint, then, is that Obama is an unknown quantity, whereas you already know what you’d be getting with Hillary. Well they both do have pasts, although you might have to dig into Obama’s a bit more. However, much of what has given me pause lately has been rooted in the present, mainly in how badly Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been mismanaged, from their often non-existent ground game to their tone-deaf, inflammatory and defensive statements. If that’s what she’s going to bring to the White House, then I’m not buying it–you’re right that our nation needs to be fixed, that will be a huge job, and we’ll be able to do it much better if the next President has a large base of support. I don’t see Hillary uniting enough people to do that, but I’m seeing Obama doing it already.
As for the relative cleanness of their campaigns, I think the Clinton campaign didn’t go more negative against Obama because they saw that it wasn’t working–if anything, it just ended up losing them votes. And Obama has shown that he won’t be baited into a political flamewar, generally if he responds at all, he keeps his responses very short and very effective, and often fairly humorous as well. Also, I don’t think that the Clintons are necessarily ‘vetted’ yet either–for instance, there was a recent story about Hillary renting her donor list to InfoUSA, and their ties to its CEO–which is something I haven’t heard Barack Obama mention, either, hmm. I guess he really is trying to run a positive campaign…
Cheers!
tBone
I wish I could have read the rest of your undoubtedly inciteful comment, but I have a bad habit of tuning out when a post starts sounding like a cheesy voiceover from a shitty campaign commercial.
p.lukasiak
Actually, JJ Jr. and Obama go way back — they are both from Chicago, as you doubtless know, and Jackson was one of Obama’s earliest supporters (even taking Obama’s side in a spat between Obama and his father.) Perhaps coincidentally, it was Jackson who beat Alice Palmer in the 1995 special congressional election — and by now you probably know the whole Palmer-Obama thing.
But that is neither here nor there. What is important to me is that this IS racial politics that Jackson is practicing. He’s clearly issuing an implied threat to any black superdelegate who votes his/her conscious, and specifically used a racial appeal to Cleaver. This is separate and distinct from the kind of “convincing” that Hillary used early on in her campaign — which was the garden variety ‘well, there’s going to be lots of positions to fill in the Clinton administration, and if you want your people to get the best spots, you gotta get on board early’ persuasion.
And you know what…. i’m not really that bothered by the fact that Obama’s campaign is using these kinds of tactics. What I’m bothered by is that the Obama campaign projects the image that it would never stoop to such tactics — and the media (and Obama supporters) refuse to address the contradiction.
p.lukasiak
However, much of what has given me pause lately has been rooted in the present, mainly in how badly Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been mismanaged, from their often non-existent ground game to their tone-deaf, inflammatory and defensive statements.
well, when it comes to inflammatory statements (as opposed to projecting evil intent on graceless statements made by some of her supporters) nothing beats the memo put out by the Obama campaign trying to cast Hillary as a racist.
(And I’d certainly agree that Mark Penn should be muzzled, if not canned. One of the reasons I was in the “anyone but Hillary” camp originally was because of Penn.)
Nor do I think that Clinton has run a bad campaign — Obama has just run a much better one, aided and abetted by a media that despises the Clintons. The big problem is that the Clinton camp bought into the media narrative, and Obama subverted that narrative. All the media cared about was who would win the big states on Super-Tuesday…. and guess what? Hillary came out on top, despite all of Obama’s “momentum”. The Clinton camp virtually ignored all the states that the Dems have no chance of winning in November, and all the post Super Tuesday states (relying on her momentum from ST) — Obama organized the crap out of the ST Red States, and the “next week” states, came out of ST “viable” as a result of the “Red State” gambit, and swept everything last week.
But, as we’ve seen with George Bush (and the first two years of Bill Clinton), there is a big difference between winning elections, and governing successfully. Candidates are generally so busy running for the office that they rely upon their staffs to make the decisions on how to run the campaign, so I don’t think that any direct correlation can be drawn between how well a campaign is run, and how well someone will run the executive branch.
Chris Andersen
I’m not ready to write the Clinton Campaign obituary yet. To many people have prematurely written them off for me to make that mistake.
She definitely has the harder row to hoe but it isn’t impossible.
The most encouraging thing for me in the Lewis development is that it adds weight to my assertion that the superdelegates were never going to be the problem in the convention that so many people have fretted about. These guys are professional politicians. I always believed that most of them would go with the majority of electoral delegates. Lewis’ statement simply proves my point.
Michigan and Florida are the more pressing problem because they could be the determining factor in whichever candidate gets the majority of electoral delegates.
jj
Nope.
Here’s what’s going on inside the black electorate as we speak.
There is a sizable contingent of influential blacks (ministers, elected officials, and yes, superdelegates) who came out for Hillary early, well before Obama had won any caucuses or primaries.
These influential blacks persuaded to vote for Hillary with a combination of perks. Rumors have been consistently circlating that what black support Hillary did have, she paid for in cash. Especially with the clergy. Whether this is true or not, I have no idea but when my mother and her church friends are talking about such malfeasance in hushed tones, Hillary is in trouble.
The other perks were the usual medley of patronage and pork.
Whilst black folks don’t mind patronage and pork so much, corrupting the black clergy? Bad idea.
Meanwhile, Obama’s steady stream of wins has emboldened a lot of people who chose Hillary for reasons of pragmatism (e.g. Americans will never elect a black man, Hillary’s the only one who can win) and of fondness for Bill Clinton, to take a second look at Obama.
Hillary’s boneheaded comments about civil rights, while not exactly wrong, didn’t exactly when her any fans amongst the generation of blacks who were actually the footsoldiers in the movement (again, my parent’s generation).
My point? That the black superdelegates are only now, with the increased viability of Obama’s campaign, able to actually “vote their conscious”. Before they were simply hedging their bets.
As for Jesse Jackson Jr.s warning, as I said before – that is a pretty widespread sentiment in large sectors of black America. Any black elected official who is willing to go on record supporting Clinton in this cycle IS going to pay a political cost with an electorate that has come out for Obama in staggering majorities.
As we say in my neck of the woods: “Them’s the breaks”.
Pb
If you’re talking about this, then I’m finding myself decidedly underwhelmed.
Same here, Penn has been horrible.
I think that if Obama had dropped out and it had been, say, Edwards and some other candidate going up against Clinton, then Clinton almost certainly would have won. But for the amount of money she spent compared to the lack of infrastructure she had built up… at the very least, she hasn’t gotten her money’s worth. And Obama has run a remarkably effective campaign, which is apparently what you might expect from him–I mean, if you’re a political campaign that pays attention to such things:
That quote is 15 years old, mind you.
Exactly my point–ignoring states is really stupid, especially in a Democratic primary. Obama ran everywhere, Clinton didn’t. There are, in fact, Democratic voters in red states, and many states award delegates proportionately. Also, they ignored more than just “red states” — there’s another category of states that people call “swing states”, and they tend to be much more important in an election than “blue states”. I don’t think anyone believes that in the general, Obama would lose Massachusetts, or New York, or California. So remind me again why Hillary Clinton’s “blue state strategy” made any sense here whatsoever, or why it’s better than a “50 state strategy”? The fact is, Penn tried to run a 50%+1 general election strategy in a primary, and he got his ass handed to him.
My feeling from all this is that either Obama was more involved in the direction of his campaign, or he surrounded himself with some very good people, or both. But remember, Presidents have staffs too, and Presidents are also very busy people. So if all this means is that Obama is better at picking competent staff, then I think that too bodes well for the Presidency.
TheFountainHead
You know, I was prepared to have a legitimate argument with you, but this is disappointing. First of all, you can’t say that Hillary has run a good campaign if you admit in the next sentence that the media is against her. It’s not like the media has always been against the Clintons, or even her, nor is it true that even if they had been (which they weren’t for the VAST majority of 2006 and 2007) they could not have been won over by a good press campaign. I hate to say it but Tweety is right about this, Clinton’s campaign’s attitude toward the media has been exactly wrong at virtually every step. Like it or not, the MSM (and the internet) is how politicians (or anybody else) reaches the American people. The Clinton campaign has repeatedly failed to gain traction with them and the Obama campaign has engineered their message to dovetail with style of programming the media loves. Call that pandering if you want, call it sad, even, but it has been abundantly clear that it works, especially when combined with the ground organization that Obama has, which is another area in which Clinton failed to execute. The truth is it isn’t just that Obama’s campaign has been so much better, it’s that hers has been so blunted, so out of tune, and generally ignorant of where the politics and the people are at.
And your last paragraph makes little sense.
Of course the correlation between how a campaign is run and how a candidate performs in office is weak, but that doesn’t mean in all cases it is, or in all cases it isn’t. Also, your second sentence is a contradiction unto itself. How exactly does one become “so busy running for the office” that they can’t “run the campaign” The two are the same thing!! Yes, I think Axelrod is a VERY smart political operative and he deserves a great deal of credit for all that has been achieved, but Obama does as well, and all you need to do is look at the similarities between his national campaign and his state campaigns to see that. As is very obvious after eight years of Bush & Co., who you surround yourself with matters a great deal. Hillary’s top level advisors do not impress me, nor even you, it seems. Obama’s–at the very least–have yet to show me anything that gives me pause. They have been careful with their spin, and their spin has almost always been of a positive nature, as opposed to the “Well that doesn’t count because…” style of negative spin we’ve seen over and over again from the Clinton camp.
p.lukasiak
So remind me again why Hillary Clinton’s “blue state strategy” made any sense here whatsoever, or why it’s better than a “50 state strategy”? The fact is, Penn tried to run a 50%+1 general election strategy in a primary, and he got his ass handed to him.
it wasn’t a “blue state” campaign, it was a Super-Tuesday “big state” campaign — but the only states that were ignored were the deep red ones. Remember, Hillary won in Tennessee, Arizona, and (barely) in New Mexico, and barely lost in Missouri. It also would appear that she ignored Delaware and its 3 measly electoral college votes pretty much — I live in Philadelphia, (Northern Deleware, the most populous part of the state, is part of the Philly media market) and neither candidate had that much advertising on local stations — and delaware only has three tv stations of its own (2 PBS, plus “ION”).
Pb
p.lukasiak,
She also lost Colorado 67%-32% (net loss: 19 delegates) and Georgia 66%-31% (net loss: 29 delegates). And the real story coming out of Super Tuesday was that they effectively tied in delegates, with Obama slightly ahead–when the projected “good” outcome for Obama would have been losing by 100-200 delegates. What if Clinton had competed in those states, instead of ignoring them? And remember, Obama won more delegates in Illinois than Clinton did in California–margins of victory matter, go figure.
Again, having a decent ground game is more important:
p.lukasiak
How exactly does one become “so busy running for the office” that they can’t “run the campaign” The two are the same thing!!
The distinction I’m trying to make is that candidates spend most of their time “campaigning”… giving speeches, interviews, and soliciting donations, rather than being deeply involved in the decision-making process of the campaigns. I think this may have been especially true with Hillary — her depth of knowledge on the issues, and her ability to explain/defend her own policy proposals, suggest that when she wasn’t “campaigning”, she was working on issues, not “managing” her campaign. (And I know you’ll get mad for me saying this, but watching Obama in the debates, I get the impression that he is more of a “power point” candidate — he farms out his policy proposals, reads them through, and learns the bulletpoints. In debates, you can see him trying to remember specific details at times. So you may be right about him being more involved in campaign management than Hillary.)
And I disagree with you about the media not always being “anti-Clinton” — at least when it counted, and especially when contrasted with the coverage Obama received. The Shorenstein Center Study of the first five months of the campaign bears this out. The study shows that 37.8% of the stories about Clinton were negative, and only 26.9% were positive (35.4% were neutral). Meanwhile, 46.7% of Obama coverage was positive, and only 15.8% was negative (37.5% neutral).
And forgive me for saying so, but the willingness to suck up to the media in a political campaign should not be a major factor in deciding who gets to be the next president.
p.lukasiak
She also lost Colorado 67%-32% (net loss: 19 delegates) and Georgia 66%-31% (net loss: 29 delegates).
Georgia is deep red, so I don’t blame her for ignoring it. Colorado was a stupid state to ignore though. What is obvious is that the Clinton campaign never bothered to adjust their strategy to deal with what Obama was doing — her campaign should have devoted more resources to Colorado, because there is no way she couldn’t have done much better than 32% there if a significant effort had been made.
Pb
p.lukasiak,
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 by 0.59%; in 1996, he lost it by 1.17%. I’ll predict that if Obama’s the nominee in 2008, he’ll win some red states in the South that haven’t been won since Bill Clinton or before; in any case, I think he has a much better shot at that than Hillary Clinton does. And, had she put even a tiny bit of effort into Georgia, maybe she could have held down her losses — losing by 35% is a blowout.
P.S. That study link is interesting, thanks; I wish it had more months, because there’s a fair bit of variation there. Apparently Clinton got covered just as (un)favorably as Giuliani did — maybe that’s a New York thing?
TheFountainHead
First of all, you’re right, I would disagree with you that he’s any less wonkish than Hillary is, but even if he were, I think that’s not too much to his detriment, as in reality, that’s not the day to day job of being the President.
And I’m not disagreeing with you that from the time that Obama started his campaign in earnest till now, the MSM has not been overly kind to her, but prior to that they gave her nearly a year of “The Clinton Inevitability” broadcasting with nary a mention of any real competition from Obama. So to say that it’s been “unfair” is somewhat, well, unfair.
Finally, I’m not saying the willingness to play the media (not necessarily suck up to them, as you put it) makes a good President, but it does however, make for a good campaign, and a good campaign is the only thing that can deliver a good man or woman to the Oval Office. Call it a necessary evil if you like, but it is necessary, and thus far the Clinton campaign has failed pretty badly at holding a consistent and positive narrative with the media. Even George Bush did that for over six years.
Daryl Campbell
In exit polls across the country Obama and Clinton supporters said they would vote for the other candate. The numbers are somewhere in the mid seventies.
The rank and file haven’t lost track of the main goal and that is to put a dem in the White House. I’ll vote for either one before I press the button for Senator Century.
ThymeZone
I don’t think she’s a racist. I also don’t think she’d stop at flirting with racism or dogwhistle racism or any other campaign trickery to get votes.
I’m amused by your torrent of pixels for the Hildebeast. I think we can chart her decline as being directly proportional to the number of words you post in support of her.
Correlation and causation are the same, aren’t they? In that case, you are singlehandedly destroying her bid for the presidency. How will you live with that, later?
Okay, enough fun at your expense. Can you tell me in a couple of brief sentences why you think she’s a better choice than the guy I have given all my spare money to lately, and will continue to give to until he either wins or concedes? At this website?
Before you jump on my case, remember that I was touting her as the apparent inevitable nominee last fall and saying that even though she gives me a thunderclap headache (it’s a medical term, look it up), I’d not only vote for her but work for her election this fall.
Well, that was before I rode the pony. But anyway.
jcricket
Really? I doubt it.
First, voters in these areas often don’t have much of a choice. Unless it’s Wynn v. Edwards, a black official that supports Clinton but is otherwise in tune with their constituents will have little chance of being voted out of office.
Second, it’s primary season. If these same officials get behind Obama once he’s the nominee, no one important will remember their support of Clinton during primary season. This is especially true if Obama wins the presidency by any good margin.
Third, if Clinton wins a couple of contests in the coming weeks, the situation could be quite different. I know all you Obamamaniacs think it’s a done deal, and have some momentum graphs that show he’s now the inevitable nominee – but remember how it felt when the shoe was on the other foot. He’s the winner until he’s not. He’s the leader until he’s not. Just like Clinton’s strategy was brilliant until it wasn’t.
If Clinton has more pledged delegates + super delegates than Obama, regardless of his popular vote margin or “momentum”, there will be a high likelihood she will get the nomination. If someone gets Obama to sign on as VP at that point, no one will be paying any price because you get two candidates for the price of one at that point.
Obama’s great. I think Hillary’s better, but regardless, they’re both great by any objective standard. What they’re doing now is trying to contrast to each other and win the Democratic nomination. As soon as either does that, I expect them both to be campaigning heavily against the Republicans.
No price to pay for supporting either candidate at this point. It could be different if the Machiavellian situation comes true with super delegates “over-ruling” the pledged delegate leader. But MoveOn has lost my support at this point with their attempt to frame a perfectly legitimate race and set of tactics at this point as somehow undemocratic. It’s that kind of intra-party division-making that kills the Democrats over and over again.