Mental toughness
Faced with the reality that nothing much is now going to change: that both Clinton and Obama will have realistic claims (well, alright: self-styled realistic claims) to be the nominee come 10 June and the formal end of the primary season, it comes down to mental toughness tempered by calculations about the all-important judgement of history. The AP has an interesting take on - but could not hear - the two having on the Senate floor this week.
The fact is that objective analysis does not necessarily end the matter, among even fair-minded people. No-one is fairer than Ron Brownstein, and yet he seems genuinely conflicted: "If Obama runs well, he seems more likely than Clinton to assemble a big majority and trigger a Democratic sweep - not only by attracting independents and crossover Republicans but also by increasing turnout among African-Americans and young people. But if Obama stumbles, he could face a greater danger of fracturing the traditional Democratic coalition by losing seniors and blue-collar whites to McCain, principally on security issues. Clinton's reach across the electorate may not be as long, but her grip on her voters could be firmer."
The full piece is and well worth a look - the Pew finding that 30% of poorer white Democrats might ditch the party and go for McCain if Obama were the nominee is particularly eye-catching. Racism or educationism?
Hello, I'm 
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
The Clintons have successfully managed to racialise this contest in order to frighten White blue-collar voters and Latinos. It worked well in Ohio and Texas. They've given up on the Black vote but this has come at a very high cost for the Party.
If Hillary manages to steal the nomination with help from superdelegates, black voters, young voters and many upscale White liberals will stay at home in November as a protest.
That's why Hillary desperately wants Obama as her VP.
If Obama is the nominee, he needs to work hard to win over poor whites and Latinos. He needs the endorsement of both John Edwards and Bill Richardson.
I also wouldn't rule out choosing Hillary as his running mate. He doesn't want her, but as a compromise to maintain party unity and bridge the demographic divide, he may have no choice.
Reminds me a bit of JFK and Lyndon Johnson in 1960.
Justin,
I'm sorry to say that this qustion of Obama being anymore the President has been answered by his pastor (self proclaimed).
He is obviously not a follower of Martin Luther King. The hate speech that spews from his pulpet could only be matched in a mosque in Iraq.
I was enthralled with Obama and strongly behind him as a crossover Republican. No More. I could never vote for Hillary as I'm finished with the clan mentality.
It's sad, he sure is carismatic and had me fooled. Even if he distances himself from this man, twenty years is to long to follow without influence. It will interesting to here what you and the greatly informed Webb-reporters say about this.
Doug
I don't think that Obama needs to worry about McCain. Let's not forget that the democrats have the like of George Bush and Cheney to help their cause. McCain needs the right wing supporters to win but in doing so will need to ally himself more closely with the Bush Cheney team. The "change" factor will really apply in the republican vs democrat contest. By pointing to the past and using his superior oratory, Obama can win. The security card has already been used in the 2004 election and it is steadily losing is value. A lousy economy will also push voters towards the democrats. The real fight is with Hillary to get the democratic nomination .
What I find interesting about the article you cited is that the author does not take into account the "A.B.H." (anyone but Hillary) coalition. These are voters who are, quite literally, hitting the polls not to vote for who they want to be President, but who they don't want.
My roommate is one such voter. If the election goes Hillary V. McCain, he votes for McCain. If it's Obama V. McCain, he goes Obama.
Many right wing talk show hosts and pundits have actually inflated Hillary's image ("Oh, Hillary's already won anyway, why bother talking about the dems today?") on the air. Why? Because they know that a vote for Hillary in the primaries is a vote for McCain, who they despise only slightly less than Hillary.
"if Obama stumbles, he could face a greater danger of fracturing the traditional Democratic coalition by losing seniors and blue-collar whites to McCain . ." I don't think he will even have to stumble - John McCain would be far more appealing to many senior citizens, not least because he is a contemporary of theirs, sharing many of the same experiences and concerns. He is not so far to the right as to be entirely distasteful, and life experience does count, something about which Mr Obama cannot equal. No scandal, a moderate critic of President Bush, representing the Flag, Mother and, possibly, Apple Pie seems a logical choice for many older voters, especially the majority who cannot agree with βGod Damn Americaβ as Mr Obamaβs minister has so poisonously proclaimed.
Obama comes across as professorial and not at all like a community organizer who worked with out of work steel workers. Hopefully over the six weeks between the Mississippi and Pennsylvania primaries he will find the time to fine tune his campaign. It's gotten stale lately as has Hillary's but remember, she is the establishment candidate. He is the upstart. He has to grip on the popular imagination. He has the credentials to appeal to Hillary's working class base. He only needs to remember how to make it work for him.
I think Ron Brownstein has absolutely the correct analysis. Clinton does have a more reliable vote by virtue of the fact that she (well, her husband) is tried and tested. However, I think if Democrats really want to change the country, then they need to gamble on Obama. A lot of well-meaning presidencies have been blocked by the lack of a support across the board. Clinton will just never be able to generate that support. In the end, it's a choice between a decent chance of real change in America, or a small shift back to the left with a large degree of stagnation..
The revelation that poorer Americans would even consider voting for McCain is astonishing.That the very people with the most to benefit from Health Care Reform would vote for a Candidate who is opposed to change beggers belief.
"Security" issues are a Red Herring trumpeted by Politicians with no answer to the real problems.There is no Power,or Powers on the Planet capeable of threatening the Military might of the USA.Americans would do well to remember that 9/11 was perpatrated by a group of lunatics armed with no more than knives.
Justin, the less exotic term would be classism. Not so much the entrenched English variety, but the stark economic classism bred by the widening disparities of wealth here. I say this as a PhD from a working class family seeing both sides of the divide. The open, mocking, genuinely cruel and dismissively classist attitude of my educational peers (the 'latte liberals' as they are known here) towards those with less education, affluence, privilege as themselves shocks me almost daily. There is no self-consciousness whatsoever about the open prejudice. The less 'educated', less privileged groups seethe not about race but about the callous, overpaid elites looking down their noses at them. And because the wealthy elites champion a certain candidate, that chosen one becomes more and more distasteful, by association, to the less privileged voters. The one place where this intersects with race is in the perception among the vulnerable middle and working classes (accurate, in my view) that uplifting the black race (one token at a time, of course) is the pet social cause of the elite set, for whom no other social injustices, or races, seem to matter or exist. It's almost a kind of disturbing love triangle, with the formerly quite stable middle classes, aspiring immigrants of every ethnicity, and working classes being thrown under the bus over the last 8 years while the elites run off with their new love interest. I'm afraid it would be the same dynamic for any 'out' group in this surprisingly neurotic triangle. Oddly, one of the clearest (satirical) portraits of this divide in the Dems' election campaign came from NYTimes conservative columnist, David Brooks, on 8 February, 'Questions for Dr. Retail' (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html). His answer to the question, are 'the Democrats are fundamentally divided', is too optimistic, in my view, but the rest is spot on.
It's interesting that, according to reports out of Ohio, it may be the Republicans who are keeping Hillary in the race. Rush Limbaugh is claiming credit for encouraging Republicans to cross over and vote in the Democratic primaries. Of course, they stand to profit even if it isn't true; the Democrats have torn themselves apart with infighting before.
Justin,
How appropiate that you title this mental toughness. The proverbial lynching of religious freedom as well as Obama, over political rantings of a puesdo preacher sounding strangely like Malcom X. (Black Muslim)
The question than becomes is Obama truely Christian, as any Christian will tell you his preacher sure has a colorful (no pun intended) take on biblical interpetation.
I raise this as Americans destroyed a Mormon(the other M religion)who was perfectly qualified to lead this country through financial mis-givings left to us by the current Congress.
So what now, a liberal republican with a liberal congress? Both running campaigns (house and senate seats are up for re-election) touting how they will spend more and more tax money, while only taxing the rich.
Strange how Americans don't know they are all 'rich'. Comments the next few days will be interesting to say the least.
Thanks Justin
Doug
Mr. Webb:
Is it not the typical "progressive" view that if one does not follow a particular line of thoughts that it must be because of racism or lack of education? This type of elitist thinking is one thing that is wrong with the American left and apparently the British left also. They can't tolerate any view that deviates from their own. On one hand they blame poverty on an unjust economic system victimizing a feeble underclass. Of course when it is convenient, they place blame on some poor guysβ failure to educate himself. It is refreshing to see that you can prevent yourself from falling into something so intellectually thin.
I think Ron Brownstein's analysis is pretty much spot on. Although Nancy Pelosi has said that the Democratic Dream Ticket would not include both Obama and Clinton (BTW when did that become her decision, can we have a touch more humility please ?) they agree on most of the big issues and between them appeal to a large demographic base. Among other things Obama is a strong supporter of 'gender issues' and Clinton is a strong supporter of 'race issues' which is far more telling than anything that their respective supporters may say. Therefore, overall, they could have a great working relationship - I doubt, either of them would be where they are today unless thay were canny politicians able to put any personal issues behind them. As for this being a 'vitriolic' Democratic campaign, even though I'm English and rely on the web for my info, as bad as some of the things that have been said/spun are, from what I remember the recent past has featured far, far worse than this. Nonetheless, I wish rival supporters wouldn't criticise Clinton for her 'ego' and Obama's 'messiah complex' as this is PART of each individual's strength and, I believe, makes a combined Obama/Clinton ticket all the stronger for it.
The Clintons have successfully racialised this contest in order to frighten white blue collar voters and Latinos. It worked in Ohio and Texas but at a very high price for the Democratic Party.
If Hillary steals the nomination with help from superdelegates, the party will split. Blacks, young voters and many upscale white liberals will stay at home in protest at the general election.
That's why Hillary desperately needs Obama as her VP.
If Obama ends up as the nominee, he may have to pick Hillary as his running mate. He doesn't want her, but it may be the only way he can be sure of the blue collar and latino vote. Perhaps if John Edwards and Bill Richardson endorse him, it might make a difference, but at the moment, a joint ticket is the only way I see out of this to maintain party unity.
In the Wright controversy, Senator Obama faces a test of leadership that will influence collective assessment in the primary season of his strength in the general election season:
How can Obama claim to have a better "JUGDEMENT" when he can't even judge the time to quit from his church, until the press judged it.
In fact he's just one politician, and a rookie of course.
I agree with Ellen - its not always about race, but socio-economic class. In Ohio, amongst blue-collar workers on the assembly lines of America's industrial 'rust-belt', many see Obama as a spoiled rich kid, a Harvard frat boy who's never done a hard day's work in his life.
Secondly, Obama is further to the right-wing, on both health care and economic policy, than Clinton who is centrist on these issues. The working-class see little difference between McCain and Obama, in terms of their economic future. Seniors as well are not keen on Obama, as he has said he would re-consider privatising social security (retirement/old age pensions). Also, they aren't buying the "change" and "hope" theme, as they say, Been there. Done That. Bought that T-shirt. Just a Hollywood fake for seniors, need a President not an American Idol. Also, his gaffes on foreign policy and national security haven't helped him with some demographics.
It may be pithy, trite and cliche, but like many other countries, "It's the economy, stupid", not everything in the 2008 US Democratic primaries can be reduced to race and gender.
An addendum to my earlier post regarding classism:
The divide is just going to get worse as well. Have you noticed the price tag for a college education lately? Tuition charges at American universities are so exhorbidant that we're quickly reaching a point where only the affluent elite can go to college at all. My family couldn't contribute financially to my education. If I were a high school senior today, I wouldn't be able to afford the risk and massive debt demanded by out-of-control tuition fees. I certainly wouldn't have a PhD either. Scholarships help only a very small fraction of lower income students. 'Financial aid', by and large, means huge student loan burdens for all students trapped in that system. So 'educationism', as you call it, will only get worse, and, of course, those who cannot afford college now (a huge percentage of the country) will be blamed and scorned by the elite for their lack of college 'education'.
I can never understand why some underpivelaged people vote for conservatives - particularly in Ameirca where they go out of their way to fleece you of everything you've got.
The only people who benefit from a Republican Party candidate are billionaires and any company listed on the Fortune 500.
They more than anyone use the politics of fear to control people. The Cold War was over so they needed a new fear. September 11th gave the Republican Party the perfect fear - terrorism. Unlike the Cold War, there is no danger of this fear ever dying as terrorism is an idea. And, so long as human beings can think for themselves there will always be terrorists.
The obscene acts of September 11th gave Bush an opportunity to demonstrate the resilience of America in the face of the evil cowardice that is terrorism. Bush had an opportunity to show the world that no matter what evil is brought, they will not allow their way of life to be disturbed by terrorists. And he took that opportunity and binned it. And, by re-electing him (sorry, I mean electing him) in 2004 the Ameircan people seemingly approved the ridiculous policies conducted by the Bush administration.
I like America but I will never understand why so many Americans voted for George W Bush.
Clinton has so little in comparison to obama. But then she does have someone on here side that (this might sound ominously familiar)works for fox news: Justin states "Anyway, she has stepped down and can now devote more time to Fox News. "
Obama has won more states, more delegates, he can command huge crowds at speechs, he has the moral high ground with no personal attacks like the clinton campaign, he can justifiably argue for the anti war vote, he can, although by no means has to rely on, huge numbers of black AND young votes, the emphises here is on young voters, important and telling considering disillusionment and apethy, he can raise more money, he is predicted to put up a better fight against Mccain.
All Clintons attacks theoretical and unproven, Obama won't be ready at 3am! Is that a joke? It's a phone, in the white house full of staff ringing. He is unexperience, this gets shot down by her him asking to run with her. She won the big states: everyone expected the democrates to win this election easily, so the fact that she won big states doesn't imply that she is needed to win the election for the democrates.
If Clinton gets in the idea of democracy in USA will be shattered for me, already wobbling from the al gore winning popular vote argument, and the amount the fox news seems to sway opinion, to the realisation that America over the last twenty years or so will have been run between two families: the Clintons and the Bushs. This election will serve to disillusion completely, or hoopefully show me that the system works and the world could head in a positive direction.
It not likely that Hilliary could ever be Obama's VP, because she appears not capable of submitting to his authority. Can anyone imagine a joint campaign,where she would have to follow his lead?
Obama is not going to be Hilliary's VP because he is in first place in delegates, states won, popular vote and general appeal.
It appears to me, contrary to Mr. Webb's statement, that Hilliary does not have an arguable claim to the nomination, if it is based on the will of the people. Her strategy seems to be to so Damage Obama among the base that the Super delegates would move to her. However, no matter what damage she does to the base, the Super delegates will not destroy the party for her ambition.
The kindness thing I can find say for her, is that she has lost her perspective. However, in doing so, she has become the Republicans best agent. She is stealing time Obama could used to heal the divide. She is causing dollars that could go toward the DNC and other candidates to be consumed in this unnecessarily extended end game.
Justin, can you please explain why no two media election 2008 sites on the Democratic Party battle show the same record of pledged delegates for each of the contestants?
Justin
Why is the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ hardly/not mentioning the Pastor Wright episode? This is big news in the US and will, unless Obama handles it well, likely ruin his chances of being seen as a post-racial condidate?
Very surprised as its potentially Willie Horton-esque...
This will go to the wire! I feel Obama will be the chosen candidate. However, he will not become president. America is not ready for a black man. Clinton is the only candidate that can challenge McCain, voting for Obama is voting to four more years of so called republican leadership.
What "reasonable claim" to the nomination has a candidate who has fewer deleagtes, fewer total votes, is shown running second to the other party's nominee, and is disliked by half of the electorate?
More should be looked at than the simple fact that Clinton and Obama will be gaining votes from cross-over Republicans and the youth of America.
For one, has anyone really stopped to take a look at the fact that, as a whole, the States south of the Mason-Dixon despise both an African-American and a female running? Call it racism and sexism if you like, but I consider it morals based on how people are raised.
For two, give this article a look:
The writing itself may be heavily biased, but the stats and numbers are not.
Wow.
Ellen, whoever you are, have made my day.
By the way, I believe the university system will collapse once the MIT "open source" model takes hold.
Think of it. You can now take any or all of MIT's courses for free. You get no "course credit". But who cares. If I can get through their Chemistry courses successfully, I will be one of the most educated chemists in the country.
Believe me, it only takes a few hours of talking about chemistry to another chemist to get a job (if you know what your talking about)
Of course other jobs that are guarded by "credentials", will be another matter.
Let me say this about "credentialed" jobs. I am a programmer. I always "automate", whatever job I hold.
Interestingly enough, when I worked at CALPERS (the California Public Employees Retirement System). They had work rules against automation.
Comment number 7 is exactly right in my opinion!
But if Obama stumbles, he could face a greater danger of fracturing the traditional Democratic coalition...
I think Obama's attendance at a church for 20 years that speaks the language of hatred toward America will not sit well for him. To say he was not aware says to me "I don't believe him". To say to the public, he disagrees with what was spoken at the pulpit, says to me "Why did you stay for 20 years". What hasn't been mentioned by the media again and in regard to the church's idealogy is Obama's own wife saying "this is the first time I can be proud to be an American". I am sorry but that is just unacceptable. This attitude will not bring unity to our nation. Obama has been uncovered. No matter what he says, the stain remains.
"Educationism"...?? Try looking that one up in the OED sometime. A new high - or low - in politically correct journalese. A polite code word no doubt, for the most feared word in American politics - CLASS. The white working class in America has every reason to "ditch" (another favorite journalese term) the Democrats. Not since FDR have those "gritty working folks" gotten much from the Party that takes them for granted. Obama Copacabana, by upbringing and ideology, is the culmination of the Democratic Party's complete gentrification. By keeping the spotlight on 'race' or 'gender', it takes the focus off class. Obama declared, disengenously, earlier in the campaign, that "Americans don't believe in class". Rich Americans like him maybe, but not the majority of "gritty working folks". They not only believe it, they live it, unlike Copacabana. Which is why they don't believe in a toff like Obama. But other rich Independents and Republicans do. Politics in America is about class, we just don't want to talk about it openly. Which is why pol's and dutiful journalists have to resort to untoward euphemisms like "educationism". It's almost as honest as saying "no one is fairer" than Ron Brownstein while conveniently neglecting to mention that Brownstein is married to John McCain's Communications Director, Eileen McMenamin. So, yeah, he's genuinely conflicted alright, with good reason. And he's obviously not the only journalist "on the bus" that is.