Matthew Dowd
A Man in the Middle Looks at the Whole Wide World of People and Politics
Matthew Dowd has been a campaign strategist in races throughout the country. In 30 years, Dowd has worked for Democrats such as the late Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, and Republicans including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President George W. Bush, for whom he was chief strategist in 2004.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
« Opinion: Carrie Underwood Time | Main | Does Experience Really Matter? »
Electability in November?
March 24, 2008 8:43 AM
Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor
There has been much discussion in the 2008 presidential campaign especially as it relates to the Democratic nomination process. And there seems to be a concerted effort by the Clinton campaign to point out weakness in the Obama effort related to November electability.
Let's take a look at some insights gleamed from the last 20 years of elections.
One argument being made is that there is a relationship between primary win in states and ability to win those states in the Fall.
For example, the Clinton campaign likes to point out they won Ohio and Obama lost it, and that this bodes badly for his chances of winning that state in the Fall. The Obama campaign points out wins in red states in the primary process trying to prove their strength.
To put it bluntly, there is no relationship between primary success in any given state and November success in those states.
The big reason is that, even with record turnouts in the primaries, only a small segment of the public goes to vote in the nomination process.
It looks like about 30 million people will vote in the Democratic nomination process; in November more than 130 million will vote!!! A much different electorate at stake.
And I can recall in the 2000 presidential campaign, George Bush won Iowa in the primary, then lost it in November. He lost New Hampshire by more than 17 points in the primary, but then carried it in the general election providing his electoral margin of victory.
There are many many similar examples of this in the last 20 years.
Mark Penn, Clinton's strategist this year and a major adviser for former President Clinton in the 1990s, and many other Clinton campaign folks, have stated many times recently that superdelegates (as well as Obama pledged delegates) should take into account electability in November in deciding who should be the nominee, and that Obama is the weakest candidate.
First, nearly every public poll out in last two weeks show Clinton and Obama with equal strength against McCain.
This is the case even after two very bad weeks of press for Obama. My guess is after a few weeks of favorable coverage, Obama will again be at an advantage over Clinton looking towards November.
Second, it is ironic the Clinton folks are raising this argument against Obama about electability.
They might recall that as Bill Clinton was headed towards winning the nomination in 1992, his electability in the fall was seriously in doubt. He was more than 15 points behind President Bush in May and June of that year, and in many polls he was in third place behind Ross Perot and President Bush!!!
And we know the end result of that campaign was Bill Clinton taking the oath of office in January 1993.
When talking about electability we should all keep in mind that each campaign will try to use arguments to show they are stronger, and that today’s polls are only a barometer of today.
Electability, like momentum, can be as fleeting a concept, as the deciding moments every week in this process.
This is still Obama’s race to lose at this point.
March 24, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (334)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/27395934
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Electability in November?:
Clinton won Ohio because she was backed by a popular Democratic governor (Strickland), and a former senator/American hero (Glenn). Her margin of victory went up because she spread lies about Obama's consistent approach to NAFTA ... and it turns out that it was HER campaign that was giving the "wink-wink" to the Canadian government. An additional percentage point or two would go to vindictive Republicans following Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who voted for Clinton (note: WHY to THEY want Hillary to succeed?) In the general election, Obama will get the support of Strickland and Glenn, the mainstream democrats, and all the newbies that his powerful presence, and substance of policies and ideas, have brought to the campaign. Obama will take Ohio easily, now that Ken Blackwell is not our Secretary of State.
Posted by: malthusian77 | Mar 24, 2008 8:53:56 AM
Your inormation is so lies!!!! I hope you still support Obama when they roundup all the White people and Al Sharpton and Rev Wright are teaching your children.
Posted by: jfb | Mar 24, 2008 8:59:01 AM
I agree. The Clinton campiagn uses tactics that were used against Bill Clinton in his race for the White House.
What we have to look at is, the States Obama has won. Several of the swing states Colorado and Iowa.
While Clinton has the agruement of winning the big states etc NY, CA, NJ, MA...
The point she's missing is, these states are democratic states. Whoever wins the democratic nomination will carry these staes in the fall.
What we should worry about is, who can carry the purple states... states Obama has won.
Posted by: Vanessa | Mar 24, 2008 8:59:15 AM
Finally... Someone points out that primaries don't mean much...although I still say margins, margins, margins...states where a candidate won hug (lets say 25% or greater) and the republican turn out was much weaker...and or John McCain did significantly worse or has high negatives with the general constituency...
These might be a sign...but the Clintons did not "carry" states that the margin in the primary is under 10%.
Ridiculous...but I am sure they will dig and dig and twist to make it seem like they aren't the "bad" guys and make it seem like Sen. obama is.
Like Howard Wolfson pointing out the negative that has come out of Obama...when it unfortunately has just been a reaction to the Clintons attacks.
...trying to say "McCarthy" is worse than "Judas" is a stretch by anybody's imagination.
Posted by: dl | Mar 24, 2008 8:59:57 AM
I am getting tired of hearing a different Clinton rationale for how the nominee should be selected every single day - it was popular vote, then big states, then electability, now calculating the future electoral college votes of states won ? They are inventing these measurements, as they have invented "tests" and "thresholds" for commander in chief, steward of the economy, etc. to benefit Hillary Clinton. Of course all of these measurements, tests and thresholds are just contorted justifications for why Hillary should be able to steal the nomination. But the truth of the matter is that the DNC rules in place clearly lay out how the nominee should be chosen - it is a "delegate race", according to the rules, as Speaker Pelosi recently reminded us. Why does the media allow Clinton to muddy the waters, to create confusion and ambiguity? To present the race as if it were tied ? As if the results according the rules are illegitimate and the Clinton camp has the right to invent new rules in the middle of the game ? The media is doing a disservice to the American people and the fact that Democratic leaders have not come out forcefully enough to call the Clinton camp out on this is troubling.
Posted by: Dem | Mar 24, 2008 9:02:32 AM
Ohioan may well have voted differently had they known the truth about Hillary's position on Nafta and that it was HER campaign, not Obama's campaign that told the Canadian government not to take her anti-Nafta speeches seriously. Clinton, to this day, misrepresents her position on this issue that has so negatively affected peoples' lives. So, how about a re-vote in Ohio to give the people a chance to vote based on what they now know is lies that Clinton tells?
Posted by: Brenna | Mar 24, 2008 9:04:50 AM
Perhaps if Sen. Clinton would spend more time on proving her credentials and policies worthy of the Presidency, she'd not need all the twisted logic about polls and numbers.
Posted by: Sara | Mar 24, 2008 9:07:25 AM
Forget the two puffballs.
Vote Nader for real change!
Posted by: Turku Wren | Mar 24, 2008 9:09:06 AM
Turku Wren, voting for Nader is again putting back a republican in the White House, a 3rd term for Bush-Cheney, it is you choice. God bless America and God bless Obama. OBAMA08.
Posted by: BKMC | Mar 24, 2008 9:15:31 AM
Clinton is a blue chip stock.
Obama is a dot com.
One can win in Nov. One will probably crash and burn.
Posted by: s.b. | Mar 24, 2008 9:18:12 AM
Thanks Mathew Dowd. This is what we call journalism.
Your information will enlight those who are still in dilemma to whom they should support (esp. from the Super delegates).
Folks must ask themselves a question: Whats the meaning of conducting primaries process?
Once you get the answer, then you will know how the end must be.
Posted by: Peace | Mar 24, 2008 9:24:54 AM
I'm a 60 year old white man fron North Carolina and I'm liking Obama more and more every day.
I read The Audacity of Hope and Dreams From My Father. Obama writes even better than he speaks.
Black Man for US President?
Yes, it's about time. I got a kick from
the post above, you know, the one by the idiot:
Your inormation is so lies!!!! I hope you still support Obama when they roundup all the White people and Al Sharpton and Rev Wright are teaching your children.
"All your base belong to us."
Posted by: Bill in NC | Mar 24, 2008 9:26:19 AM
State by state in the important democratic base states and key swing states, Obama is faring very badly vs. McCain because he loses significantly among white voters. It's still an electoral college election and Obama is in very bad shape for November vs. McCain.
Posted by: Alicia | Mar 24, 2008 9:29:09 AM
Again analysis from the elite class that support Obama. The fact is that you can look at the electoral map all you want and it remains unchanged from 2000 and 04. If you are going to win in november a canidate must get 2 of 3, PA, OH, FL. In Ohio primary Hillary got 70% of the white vote. In PA it will be the same or higher, and in the election in FL she got almost 60% of the vote. IN the fal Fl will definitely go republican with the help of a republician gov and the help of the elderly and jewish voters. So that leaves PA, and Oh. This is where white working class people will be the swing vote. These are the people who have not been attracted to Obama and with Rev. Wright they will more than likely go with McCain. So do all the Harvard analysis you want but unless he can get white working class voters John McCain will win in novermber its just that simple.
Posted by: Russell | Mar 24, 2008 9:29:32 AM
Obama is the Wright choice.
Posted by: Blair Pittsburgh Pa | Mar 24, 2008 9:30:00 AM
Obama will not win NJ, Ohio and PA, and FL and MI. Reporters need to wake up and do their homework. Forget the primaries, forget the spin. Read the local newspapers and go interview the locals. Obama is toast in middle America and beyond. And Nancy will lose her Speaker role. The Dems should have had this presidency in the bag but the DNC, along with the MSM, have tried to shove an unqualified candidate down our throats and people are rebelling.
Posted by: tiffany | Mar 24, 2008 9:32:01 AM
A lot can happen between now and the convention. Much of it will depend on the voting in the final primaries and if more negative information is put out about Obama. I have listend to the right wing radio shows so I know there is more to come. Weather underground, black panthers, more crazy preachers and don't forget the Rezko trial going currently. Also, the more Obama is dragged off the teleprompter the more he slips up, like making statements about typical white people. It's going to be a bumpy ride, fasten your seat belts!!
Posted by: Firefighter | Mar 24, 2008 9:37:12 AM
H campagined and won electoral votes, he had ran and gained the popular vote and he has put forth the time and money in all states that the Clinton machine wrote off as unimportant. He has won in all 3 and with the remaining contests she will be unable to beat him. Now the only way for Clinton to win is to find some way to steal this election. What message does this send to other countries that we, as a nation, have spent years trying to get to hold democratic elections when we cannot even honor out own?
The man won the race for the votes and unless the voice of the people is ignored he will be the nominee.
Posted by: Brian | Mar 24, 2008 9:37:28 AM
s.b.
I like the analogy. In a similar vane you might consider Clinton good old, conservative, steady, politics as usual and Obama as fresh, new, forward looking opportunity. I am willing to take the risk of jump starting our government with Obama, to make it a country of the people, for the people, and by the people. Under Clinton I believe it will continue to be a government of the special interests, for the special interests, and by the special interests.
Obama 08!!!
Posted by: BooMan | Mar 24, 2008 9:38:06 AM
Matthew Dowd is an liar
Posted by: Carlo | Mar 24, 2008 9:38:34 AM
McCain can't beat Obama whioh is why they keep pushing this race. It seems that it is always republicans they have on the media with the talking heads and Clinton supporters while they "discuss" Obama when it is really nothing more than Chris Wallace said the other day "Obama bashing".
The Clinton people would like for us to believe that he is unelectable but the truth of the matter is that he is soooo electable that the republicans and Clinton supporters have to try to tear him down to beat him even if it means pulling the race card. They did to understand what the rest of us already know. Yes, he's a black man but he is also a WHITE man. Best of both worlds, united worlds under him.
Posted by: Deanna | Mar 24, 2008 9:41:39 AM
I'm a white woman in my 40'ies. Hilary is refusing to release her tax info which is full of deals they had with crookes in Dubai. Her polls will drop rapidly when the truth comes out.
I'm tired of one candidate changing the rules every week just so she wins. God help America.
Posted by: Sue | Mar 24, 2008 9:44:14 AM
Notice how the clinton supporters and talking heads can never answer the charges against her? they just come out with more lies and attempt to distort the debate......wonder if their parents were breeding for stupid or if they are just sad mistakes?
Posted by: Brian | Mar 24, 2008 9:44:22 AM
John McCain won the Ohio primary, too, after all...
Posted by: dan | Mar 24, 2008 9:44:47 AM
SPIN GOING ON HERE ABOUT OBAMA...I AGREE WITH THE ABOVE COMMENTOR. OBAMA IS GOING DOWN, WHY DONT YOU ASK MIDDLE AMERICA WHAT THEY THINK INSTEAD OF WHAT THE PUNDITS SAY ABOUT HIM. THERE IS SIMPLY NO WAY THAT OBAMA WILL WIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. THE DEMS LOSE AGAIN RUNNING THAT RACIST OBAMA, CLEAR AND THE TRUTH...
Posted by: SUSAN | Mar 24, 2008 9:45:23 AM
If the popular vote or polls in certain states or even general election electoral numbers were a surer way to select a viable nominee, then I'm sure the Democratic party would have used those measurements in their primary process, but they didn't, they created a delegate system. The delegate system serves a purpose, if it didn't it wouldn't exist. Moreover, it is the system currently in place. It makes no difference whatsoever to argue for using a different standard now, the rules are already in place and the game has almost been fully played, sorry Hillary supporters, can't bend the rules to fit your candidate's strengths.
Posted by: Dem | Mar 24, 2008 9:45:59 AM
sorry i meant, Hillary Clinton is an liar
Posted by: carlo | Mar 24, 2008 9:46:06 AM
OBAMA is the real candidate for Democrat. Clinton is untrushtworthy. We are tired with her big lies. If CLINTON win the nomination she will continue to lie to the AMERICAN PEOPLE and McCain will defeat her easily in the General Election. No doubt about that. PEOPLE WAKE UP!!!!!
Posted by: I.A.T Smith | Mar 24, 2008 9:48:17 AM
OBAMA is the real candidate for Democrat. Clinton is untrushtworthy. We are tired with her big lies. If CLINTON win the nomination she will continue to lie to the AMERICAN PEOPLE and McCain will defeat her easily in the General Election. No doubt about that. PEOPLE WAKE UP!!!!!
Posted by: I.A.T Smith | Mar 24, 2008 9:48:19 AM
Bill in NC... as an over 50 white woman from NH I agree with you. I also read Obama's books. They give such insight into what a great thinker he truly is. After over 7 years of George W. Bush it would be wonderful to have a real statesman and scholar leading our country.
Posted by: JoAnne | Mar 24, 2008 9:48:54 AM
I liked the comment from BKMC.
Clinton is a blue chip stock.
Obama is a dot com.
One can win in Nov. One will probably crash and burn.
I agree. Obama choice is risky choice.
Posted by: ANJ | Mar 24, 2008 9:49:13 AM
Two very telling quips from Obama recently: one was that his grandmother reacted "as a typical white person", you know since "we all harbor stereotypes". These comments showed that Obama generalizes about people and groups himself. It says more about Obama than his grandmother. Middle America understood all of this, even if the press is still asking Obama if he needs another pillow.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | Mar 24, 2008 9:52:32 AM
FOX NEWS did a hatchet job on Pastor Wright. For those who want the truth visit www.candidblogger.blogspot.com
Pastor Wright was a US Marine who served as a cardiopulmonary technician and worked on LBJ during his heart surgery at Bethesda, MD. Pastor Wright received a SPECIAL COMMENDATION for his heroic efforts.
John Edwards warned that those in power would do everything they could to preserve the status quo. Slandering Obama and his preacher isn't going to work in the end. Check out that website.
Posted by: Mountain Jack | Mar 24, 2008 9:54:31 AM
I love the difference in arguments put forth between Sen. Clinton and Sen.Obama supporters...
You can feel the negative angry attacking from the Clinton side anytime facts are put on the table.
...and yes the electoral map has changed to all those who say it hasn't since 2000 and 2004...the economy, the war and people realizing they don't want the people who sent us into this war ... people who voted it for it because they are "consumate politicians" and know how to play that game...rather than what is right for who we are as a country.
Which candidate is going to bring our allies and some of our enemies to the table to help us forward in the fall. Which candidate and their tone and campaign goes into this Presidency with more people in more countries cheering for him?
There are so many reasons all the Clinton supporters aren't seeing clearly...and they are so wrapped up in the need for their candidate to be President they don't see that #1 overall ...is who is going to put US back in a situation to put us back in good standing and get us out of this horrible political, financial mess.
Posted by: dl | Mar 24, 2008 9:54:49 AM
Where's the beef? No, actually, where is the cheese? These crying OB's supporters need to grow up to face reality. Putting the WHITE-GUILT monkey on the back of the typical white men is nohting but an old used car salesman's tactic and it is not working this time around. BY November, the OB's camp will soulfully cry " because I am black". Rezko deal is not far from over, the uncharacteristic and un-patriotic speech of Michelle, ma ne-pas-belle will haunt all patriotic Americans, the hatred sermon of Jeremiah Wrong is here to stay, the devided remark of OB regarding the TYPICAL WHITE PERSON will linger among all hard working WHITE voters. Lastly, no one will vote for a disgraful candidate who dispites his own grand-mother just because she is a TYPICAL WHITE PERSON. Reality bites!
Posted by: mtr2311 | Mar 24, 2008 9:55:10 AM
s.b. I love your comment.... Hilliary has the leadership for President of the United States.
Posted by: diane | Mar 24, 2008 9:57:03 AM
I had a chance to look at tape of Wright in his sermons. He sure does use words to provoke but "chickens coming home to roost line" is in the context of the US creating collateral damage as acceptable in a conflict and you know we have. In the "God Dam America" quote he is saying God is unchanging: God is and always will be a God of Love; God is and always will be a God of Justice; God is and always will be a God of Truth. Governments are not like that. Race based laws are not what God wanted but what the American government wanted so this government can be changed but to always say "God Bless America" when the laws are against God's will is incorrect and then you should say: "God Damn America" and you know if you are against gay rights or abortion you have felt the same way at times.
Posted by: Beverly Hillbilleries | Mar 24, 2008 10:02:00 AM
I FIND IT TO BE ABSURD THAT NO ONE HAS MADE A COMMENT ON HOW BORACK NEEDS TO BE VIEWED NOT AS A BLACK MAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT BUT AS A GREAT AMERICAN... WHEN DID THE ONE DROP RULE DISAPPEAR... OR DOES IT ONLY GO AWAY WHEN WHITES NEED TO FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT SELECTING A PERSON OF COLOR FOR A LEADERSHIP ROLE. TO COMPARE SENATOR BARACK TO TIGER WOODS WAS AN INSULT. UNLIKE TIGER, THE SENATOR HAS NEVER SAID THAT HE IS NOT BLACK... WHERE AS TIGER SAYS THAT HE IS SO MULTI-RACIAL AND MUTI-ETHNIC THAT HE IS ACTUALLY COBLINASIAN (I APOLOGIZE IF THAT IS INCORRECT. I AM SO TIRED OF THIS COUNTRY TRYING TO WATERDOWN A PART OF SOMEONE IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM MORE MARKETABLE. TO GO WITH THIS COLOR BLIND APPROACH IS TO IGNORE ALL THE HURDLES THAT THE SENATOR HAS HAD TO JUMP IN ORDER TO MAKE IT WHERE HE IS. tO SAY THAT THE SENATOR MUST NOW PLACE HIMSELF AS A GREAT AMERICAN AND NOT A GREAT BLACK AMERICAN... AS IF BEING A GREAT BLACK AMERICAN IS LESS THAN, WOULD BE LIKE TELLING HILLARY THAT SHE NEEDS TO PUT HER GENDER ASIDE AND WE MUST NOT LOOK AT HER AS THE FIRST POSSIBLE WOMAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BUT JUST A GREAT CANDIDATE IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT IN ORDER FOR US TO FEEL COMFORTABLE IN VOTING FOR HER WE MUST LOOK AT HER AS A MAN. IT IS SAD THAT ONE MUST DOWN PLAY A MAJOR PART OF WHO THEY ARE INORDER TO MAKE OTHERS FEEL COMFORTABLE IN VOTING THEM... IT IS SAD... AND ONE MUST ASK IF HE DOES PUT ASIDE HIS RACE IN ORDER TO WIN THE WHITE WORKING CLASS VOTE, WILL HE BE ABLE TO PICK IT BACK UP LATER, WILL HE BE ABLE TO ADDRESS URBAN ISSUES WITHOUT BEING SEEN AS A PERSON WHO IS TOO MILLITANT... WILL HE BECOME A TAR BABY?
Posted by: ANNEICE | Mar 24, 2008 10:05:07 AM
obambi is no Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Josh | Mar 24, 2008 10:05:47 AM
The HillBilly Show's 'kitchen sink' approach is only because they are in Plan B right now. Hill and Bill have finally accepted she's toast in 08 and have devised Plan B - "Hillary in 2012!" The first point in Plan B is make certain that Obama will lose - if they don't accomplish this first point, the rest of Plan B will not work.
Watch out folks (and Obama), it's going to get UGLY. The HillBilly Machine has just started to put the gears into motion - there's going to be SMOKE before long.
Posted by: Mary | Mar 24, 2008 10:07:19 AM
It is indeed strange that we tell the world how important is the democratic process. We preach the importance of obeying the rule of law. We don't even speak to countries like Cuba because we say that they do not respect the rights of citizens. We invade Iraq to achieve "regime" change and show them how to have free and fair elections. We criticize Russia on their rigged elections.
However, some of us seem to laud the Clintons who would have us elect a president through a process of breaking all the rules and averting the will of the people who played by the rules.
Our poor credibility on the world stage is diminishing every day. But for some, who cares - most countries in the world don't matter anyway (like some states) and we can use our military might (just like the superdelegates) to force our will on the world.
Posted by: Peter | Mar 24, 2008 10:09:30 AM
There are no caucuses in Nov and Republicans will vote Republican.
Democrats need to ignore caucses in States that will continue to be Republican in NOV.
Maybe caucuses in swing states mean something, but not as much as a primary.
Caucuses in Red states should be totally ignored by super delegates.
It's an all ballot box vote in all winner take all, all electoral college states in Nov.
The winner take all system seems to work quite well for Republicans and they seem to win the white house more often than not.
If the point is to win the white house, Dems need to think hard about their ridiculous system of apportioning delegates and the fat that MI and FL do exist and will be voting in Nov.
Posted by: s.b. | Mar 24, 2008 10:09:53 AM
Josh
I agree Obama is NO Bill Clinton... remember all that "stuff" in the 90's with Billy boy... he was good at the economy because we had a balance with the republican revolution maybe... his foreign policy IS only considered good compared to the current administration and the ethics issues...uuuuuugh.
Only look good again compared to this administration...
CHange Change Change... yes I will say it again and again...
Do yuo remember that we could not rely on looking to him when we ran against the president in 2000 ...do you remember why Bush won in 2000 ...do yuo remember "bringing ethics" back to the white house...?
Yes Sen. Obama is NO Bill Clinton...and i am glad.
Posted by: dl | Mar 24, 2008 10:11:42 AM
I still haven't heard anything from anyone including Obama himself made be believe he has the knowledge, the experience, leadership experience and "judgment" to lead this country at this time. We have a war, we have one of the worst economic recession knocking at our doors, we have immigration issues, we have China, etc.etc. and people still believe Obama is the messiah that has the answer to all our problems! Wake up, where is his record, what he has done in Illinois or in Washington? Promises, promises and promises.
This is not American Idol context, this is the Presidency, the debacle will be to elect a man like him.
Posted by: Mary_Oregon | Mar 24, 2008 10:12:17 AM
Sure the analogy works.
Obama is a dot com.
Clinton a blue chip stock.
Where would you recommend middle America put its money right now?
Where do you think they are going to put their money in Nov?
Elite chattering classes can afford to put their money in dot coms, the working class can't.
Posted by: s.b. | Mar 24, 2008 10:13:07 AM
Matthew Doud is such a turncoat. Does he like the hate filled vile coming out of Obama's pastor? What about the Rezko deal? Obama seemed to be honest, but lately he looks like any other politician on the take. How can you support George Bush & Arnold and then change your core beliefs on a dime and support someone who has such poor judgement. Isn't judgement part of the resume for President? Obama can't pick a good mentor for his daughters, how in the heck will he choose his cabinet????
Posted by: vedi | Mar 24, 2008 10:16:06 AM
Notice hwo the Obama supporter always state who they are, white woman etc. Often they cry when they hear him speak.
In reality they are all teenagers that go to his church or work for his campaign.
None of them are who they say they are.
Real people dont do that.
Posted by: s.b. | Mar 24, 2008 10:19:12 AM
The guy who wrote this article used 'selected' stats to promote Obama. No candidate has ever lost California , Ohio, Pennysvannia and New York in the primaries and went on to win the white house. He outright FAILED to mention that.
He also fails to mention that Obama will get more bad news . He expects Obama to get GOOD coverage over the next 3 weeks . Why? Wishfull thinking? RIGGED MEDIA ? Why?
Posted by: tomdavie | Mar 24, 2008 10:23:23 AM
Sorry you can't scream about unfair if you are an Obama supporter and you deny Michigan & Florida the chance to vote and have their vote count. Splitting the vote 50/50 and seating them is not having their votes count. You can be assured that there will be a price to be paid by the democrats for allowing this to happen. In particular as Florida democrats had no choice. It was moved up without there aproval by the republicans. That's not fair its criminal.
Posted by: Kimberly Peacock | Mar 24, 2008 10:26:18 AM
Obama will only win the Presidency because he is now distinguished himself a black man running for Presidency. So not up set the American - American community, majority of the democratic super delegates will support him, not because he is electable but now be cause his the black man for President. People may think these words are racist , but they are the truth. When the Mayor of Virgina city can state as he has , that if Obama doesn't get the nomination there will be riots in the streets. Obama's campaign and racial political speech has taken the American population back to the 50's, 60's and 70's. I will vote for the first time in 46 yrs. republican!
Posted by: jp,michigan | Mar 24, 2008 10:26:27 AM
He is someone who started from the bottom, who has seen true lives in different continents (proud he's lived in my country!) through the eyes of a young child who went through a lot of difficult times growing up, and has emerged to become a true leader, very international in a true sense, and is a uniter. This is good for the world!
I am not elligible to vote, unfortunately, but GO OBAMA! MAJU TERUS! RACE AHEAD!
Posted by: indo | Mar 24, 2008 10:26:52 AM
Democratic nomination was Hillary's to lose and she is losing it. How can anyone argue that she is more electable in Nov when she screwed up the primaries. It takes strategy and smarts to win elections... different strategies for primaries and general elections. Hillary has failed in the first test, and is now asking us to trust us with a bigger test in November. Obama is a once in a life time candidate who is winning against odds. And those of you who are calling him racist, you really belong in the other party, please vote for McCain whoever the democratic nominee is. I and an Obama supporter but will vote for Clinton, if she is our nominee.
Posted by: Zia | Mar 24, 2008 10:26:52 AM
Mary,
I tend to agree with you. Although I'm not convinced Senator Clinton can argue her specific experience makes her a better candidate, I agree Senator Obama needs to do more to demonstrate his accomplishments or acknowledge his lack of accomplishment. Having looked at both candidates records I'm not sure the latter works against him.
We have two dilemmas even if you get past the race/religion issues which will surely pass - as they always do. Most Americans would rather discuss going to the dentist then face the racial tensions in our society. Secondly, most Americans feel religion is very personal and not something you should project into a campaign.
So here's our dilemma. Senator Obama has limited experience, a label as being a "good speech giver" and some questionable albeit limited failures. Senator Clinton has limited experience, a trustworthiness issue in the general publics opinion and an image problem.
Both candidates have questionable relationships, both personal and political. All of us in the Clinton camp seem to have forgotten the scandals of the 90's and the untimely deaths of many of the Clinton associates. All of that will come up during the general election as well.
Who voted for the Iraq War is really a non-issue.
The Democrats would be well served by getting this cleared up in the very near future. I'm not suggesting either candidate concede as I think this has to run it's course but if a compromise can be made between the Clinton and the Obama camp it would serve democrats well.
All this talk about Clinton and Obama supporters voting for McCain if their candidate loses the nomination is just nonsense and fairly immature. By November (after hearing the poltical differences with the Republicans) white, black, brown, purple and green voters will support the Democratic nominee.
It's a reality none of us want to accept because we want our candidate to win but history says it's a fact.
Posted by: Interested Observer | Mar 24, 2008 10:28:38 AM
I AM SO SICK OF THE MEDIA AND THE PUNDITS GIVING OBAMA A FREE RIDE....HERE IS SOME INFO ABOUT OBAMA:
One side of his mouth:
Page 88 of his book Dreams of My Father
Describes his grandmother being accosted by a rough man at the bus stop. She was clearly “upset”…. Obama was infuriated when he found out that the man who upset his grandmother was black!
The other side of his mouth:
Obamas "race" speech: I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother ��" a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
OBAMAS HYPOCRISY EXPOSED
One side of his "mouth"
Barack Obama's threat to withdraw from NAFTA should be viewed as "political positioning," according to a memo written after the U.S. presidential hopeful's senior economic policy adviser met with Canadian officials.
The memo, obtained by the Associated Press, was written by Canadian consulate staffer Joseph DeMora, after a meeting in Chicago last week with Austan Goolsbee and Canadian Consul General Georges Rioux.
The other side:
Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice said on MSNBC that neither Goolsbee nor any member of the Obama campaign had met with Canadian officials. Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe also denied to reporters that Goolsbee had met with officials. Plouffe explained that he did not know and then on a later call with reporters -- after the AP memo was leaked -- said that Goolsbee had showed Canadian officials around ....
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/10/752998.aspx
OBAMAS HYPOCRISY EXPOSED:
One side of his mouth:
On CNN last Tuesday, Senator Obama said, "Well, look, Wolf, I think if you watch how we have conducted our campaign, we've been very measured in terms of how we talk about Senator Clinton. ... I have been careful to say, that I think that Senator Clinton is a capable person and that should she win the nomination, obviously, I would support her. You know, I'm not sure that we have been getting that same approach from the Clinton campaign."
The other side:
The facts of this election stand in stark contrast to that statement. Senator Obama and his senior campaign officials have engaged in a systematic effort to question Hillary's integrity, credibility, and character. They have portrayed her as someone who would put her personal gain ahead of the lives of our troops, someone who would say or do anything to win an election, someone who is dishonest, divisive and disingenuous. They have adopted shop-worn anti-Clinton talking points, dusted them off and unleashed a torrent of unfounded character attacks against her. Among other things, they have described Hillary - and her campaign - as:
"Disingenuous"
"Too polarizing to win"
'Divisive'
"Untruthful"
"Dishonest"
'Calculating'
"Saying and doing whatever it takes to win"
"Attempting to deceive the American people"
"One of the most secretive politicians in America"
"Literally willing to do anything to win"
"Playing politics with war"
To top it off, they have blanketed big states with false radio ads and negative mailers -- ads and mailers that experts have debunked time and time again.....
Posted by: Lynn | Mar 24, 2008 10:29:25 AM
OK heres a story for you all - my stepson called from Fort Bragg yesterday, hes leaving for Afghan in a wk. He's 28, voted Bush 2x. I told him the whole Obama-Wright story, every detail. He laffed and said "Boy they're really trying to dig up anything on this guy arent they." He's risking his life for you and this country. He's voting Obama.
Posted by: nathan | Mar 24, 2008 10:31:21 AM
Hillary and Barack are both weaklings. Both carry an extraordinary load of dirty wash and both live in a world of guilt by association and character assignation and therefore, are extremely weak on any defining issues. Both are slipping behind McCain by every poll out there.
Vote for real change democrats. Vote Nader!
Posted by: Turku Wren | Mar 24, 2008 10:34:33 AM
and Obama as fresh, new, forward looking opportunity.++++++++++It is comments like this one I find the funniest, there is nothing new or fresh about Obama he is the same old dirt bag underworld politicaion.using the same old wore people that has always been used to lie and cheat and say what ever needs to be said to win He started his career using a old underworld figure name Jones to get him into the senate,the guy black mailed and bought Obama the seat, and now the guy is still doing the same thing, as Farrakhan has stated on his web page the The Final Call, Obama knows full well whos shoulders he stands on,and he was well trained and groomed on what he needs to do,,,,,,,,,,,
Posted by: ATYPICALWHITEWOMAN | Mar 24, 2008 10:36:54 AM
The bottom line is that Obama's favorables are down and there is a clear "Wright effect." Whites are moving to Hillary Clinton. If that trend continues, and the Democratic Party's elite stand with Obama, then they will be committing political suicide. And surely it is better to know that your nominee is strong in must-win states than not. Again, the primaries are only a measure of a trend, but not one any smart delegate would overlook.
Halli Casser-Jayne
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com
Posted by: Halli Casser-Jayne | Mar 24, 2008 10:38:04 AM
Lynn, come on now. I LOVE HILLARY CLINTON but I would be dishonest if I suggested the last two weeks have been a free ride for Senator Obama.
Interestingly enough I was listening to a radio broadcast the other day where several journalists from the major networks were expressing their frustration with their "political correctness". According to them, their networks are so concerned about bias against a woman or an african american that they literally level the amount of media coverage (good and bad) and determine how much they will release on each candidate on a weekly basis.
I found that to be peculiar so I looked into it myself. Come to find out...Scarborough and Smerconish have made similar comments.
Seems to me there's some truth to what you say but I don't think it's a free ride for either candidate. My sister, an Obama supporter, argues with me daily about how biased some media outlets are against Obama. Most notably Fox News, which I had to remind her hates ALL democrats.
Posted by: Interested Observer | Mar 24, 2008 10:38:14 AM
The biggest issue for Obama's electability is Michigan and Florida.
ALL the MSM were on about how good this was for Obama that there weren't going to be redo's and these states weren't going to count.
On what planet, in what parallel universe is it good for Obama to block the votes of MI and FL?
This is political suicide.
MI and Fl will have to be seated and now they will probably be seated as is.
Obama was just bluffing and stalling and trying to convince people like he's Tokyo Rose that Clinton can't win.
She can win and MI and FL have to be seated. These states will simply take it to conventnion.
If they aren't seated the Dems have lost the white house.
That's Obama's real electability issue. If he has to win by excluding them, he has lost.
Posted by: s.b. | Mar 24, 2008 10:40:20 AM
Firefighter said:
"Also, the more Obama is dragged off the teleprompter the more he slips up, like making statements about typical white people."
It should be well-known by now that Fox News purposely took the 'typical white comment" completely out of context from Obama's speech.
Turn off Fox News and seek out some objective news for a change!
Posted by: Ron125 | Mar 24, 2008 10:46:05 AM
Hillary's Hopes Halted
========================================
WASHINGTON, March 23 (UPI) -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Sunday aides to U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., use "gutter" politics to get their way.
The former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination was compared by one Clinton adviser to Judas this week following his voiced support of Clinton's rival, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., The Washington Post reported.
"I'm not going to get in the gutter like that," Richardson said of the comments from informal Clinton adviser James Carville. "And you know, that's typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency."
Richardson has been critical of the ongoing fight for the Democratic nomination, but his scorn of such tactics has primarily been aimed at Clinton's camp.
"The campaign has gotten too negative," he said of the electoral battle.
"I just feel the time has come to come together behind a candidate."
========================================
March 22, 2008
Gallup Daily: Obama Edges Ahead of Clinton
Democratic nomination preference: Obama 48%, Clinton 45%
Posted by: Roger | Mar 24, 2008 10:48:04 AM
Sorry but Obama is just not electable come Nov, too may anti persons and anti rhetoric around him.
Too many holes that just have not been plugged, with unanswered questions that leaves one wondering exactly what he is about or what he can or can not do.
I personally just cannot give him that chance and then have to sit and keep my fingers crossed that all that was brought up during the election was false, nope I would rather play it safe and take another 4 years of the Republicans.
Posted by: SJ | Mar 24, 2008 10:50:16 AM
Barack Obama is a hustler and a lying fraud who's campaign is in the toilet. The media can spend everyday between now and Apr 22 talking about how he has this nomination won. It won't change a thing. He's going to lose the popular vote....without MI and FL!
Posted by: whoisbarackobama | Mar 24, 2008 10:51:19 AM
Barack Obama is a hustler and a lying fraud who's campaign is in the toilet. The media can spend everyday between now and Apr 22 talking about how he has this nomination won. It won't change a thing. He's going to lose the popular vote....without MI and FL!
Posted by: whoisbarackobama | Mar 24, 2008 10:51:43 AM
"This is still Obama’s race to lose at this point."
Yes it is and if he keeps up the rookie one-liners, he will lose it.
There is a BIG variable that the author left out though and that is the Republican Attack Machine. To think that the controversies surrounding the Obama campaign are going to go away in a general election is simply absurd. If you fail to account for that as far as electability goes, you are committing political suicide.
Posted by: LOM | Mar 24, 2008 10:52:01 AM
HILLARY HAS THE MOST FREE RIDE BY THE MEDIA SO FAR!!!
Posted by: james | Mar 24, 2008 10:54:00 AM
In agreement with Kimberly Peacock, I have sent email to the DNC stating that if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will be voting Republican in Nov. He is not JFK, reincarnated.
Posted by: Karen Flamard | Mar 24, 2008 10:54:16 AM
All these arguments about NAFTA, Rezko, Wright, past tax returns, the Fellowship, and such are beside the point. The key issue is electability. There is no way to predict the results in November based upon the results of the primaries. Why not? Because the weather is different. The Clinton campaign has not used this argument yet. It is probably their final and most effective argument and they are just waiting for the primaries to be over. What is the average temperature and rainfall in November in each state? Look at it carefully and you will find that the states where Hillary has won are the ones where the sun will shine and the birds will sing come election day. All her supporters will show up. Obama's states? All of them will be cloudy and dreary. We all know that these young slackers will not show up unless the weather is perfect. So that proves that Hillary would do better in November than Barack. Makes sense doesn't it? About as much as any of the other nonsense coming from the Clinton Camp.
Posted by: Jonathan Swift | Mar 24, 2008 10:58:27 AM
I am a 56 year old white woman who supports Barack Obama because his vision for this country is one that I share. I would be honored to have this man lead our country to become a better place for my grand children. As for those who are afraid of what fate an African-American man as president would bring (see jfb statement above), imagine how African Americans and other minorities have felt for hundreds of years without a choice. You should let your guard down and open your minds to change. The world is moving forward in a positive new direction without you, and you're too stuck in mediocrity to see the light.
Posted by: Beacon | Mar 24, 2008 11:00:05 AM
I am a 56 year old white woman who supports Barack Obama because his vision for this country is one that I share. I would be honored to have this man lead our country to become a better place for my grand children. As for those who are afraid of what fate an African-American man as president would bring (see jfb statement above), imagine how African Americans and other minorities have felt for hundreds of years without a choice. You should let your guard down and open your minds to change. The world is moving forward in a positive new direction without you, and you're too stuck in mediocrity to see the light.
Posted by: Beacon | Mar 24, 2008 11:00:14 AM
Maybe some do not read but there is so much stuff on the net about Obama and his associates it scary.
The media just ignores this as if this is a game, this man is running for the position of President, so everything no matter how small matters, his friends, his past dealing, yes and even his youth and what he was up to.
He has so much baggage its unbelievable from Rezko to militants and terrorists the list just keeps growing by the day. How can anyone voting not take all this into consideration I do not know, and the thing is no one in the media can explain any of these matters or give one viable answer as to why Obama associated with these people.
Obama's past make Bush and Chaney look lite compared to who he got involved with.
Posted by: SJ | Mar 24, 2008 11:02:12 AM
Nathan,
Does your 28 year old stepson being deployed to Afghanistan know that Senator Obama is the chair of the Senate committee that oversees thej NATO mission in Afghanistan but he hasn't bothered to convene even one meeting? Not one!
The NATO mission there is also in crisis with very few countires willing to send their troops into combat.
Why would a young man risking his life to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan support someone who cares so little about his life, he can't be bothered to convene even one meeting?
Maybe your stepson should vote for the woman whose been on the senate armed services comittee for seven years, who shows up, who does the work, and who has faught tirelessly for veterans health benefits.
Obama is too busy with his own ego to even convene one meeting to secure the safety and security of the NATO mission in Afghanistan that includes your stepson.
Posted by: s.b. | Mar 24, 2008 11:02:54 AM