On West Virginia and the Edwards Endorsement

I realize that this post is coming 3 days late, and I said that I would have it done by yesterday afternoon, but various things delayed me. Apologies. Well, you certainly didn't hear it here first but Hillary Clinton shellacked Barack Obama in West Virginia. Anyone surprised? I sure wasn't. Anyways, for a nice wrap up of the results and the media's coverage of the results, check out this hilarious bit from John Stewart and the folks at the Daily Show. I have to admit, that I've said a lot of very intolerant things about West Virginia and West Virginians in recent days to many a friend and hospitable ear. However, upon introspection, I really don't regret calling the three women highlighted in that video "inbred rednecks", "savages", or "retarded squirrels." Now, I'm sure these women are a small minority in their state, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be lined up on the street and summarily executed anyway. The fact that such ignorance and hatred can persist in 2008 in a state that (contrary to what the first woman said) has historically been largely absent of racial conflict. As the indespensible Josh Marshall points out over at Talking Points Memo, West Virginia is 95% WHITE!!! I can't believe that the 5% racial minority in West Virginia is so assertive that it can actually cause that much racial conflict. Racism is never justified. However, I can understand why racism persists in the deep south and in many urban areas in the north. There actually is racial conflict. The population of minorities and whites in these areas are of a roughly equal proportion that allows for real tension and open conflict. In other words, the racism is rooted in sociological causes as oppossed to any entrenched cultural elements. That's just not the case in West Virginia, the demographics just aren't there. So either the racism that exists (the pervasiveness of that racism being unknown) is culturally based or West Virgina is truly some sort of anthropological phenomena that we really need to have someone study immediately.

OK. Now I realize this is an exceedingly long post, but it's gonna get even longer because I still have two more areas of interest I would like to cover. First off, I linked to the analysis of the West Virgina results by Josh Marshall before (here it is again), but there is also another great analysis by diarist DHinMI over at the Daily Kos. Before I continue, I should note that I discovered both of these posts via Ezra Klein, whom you really should be reading everyday, if you haven't been, begin doing so. NOW! Both of these posts point out that Barack Obama really doesn't have much of a white working class problem as Chris Matthews, Norah O'Donnell and the rest of MSM would have you believe. His real problem is with Appalachian voters. Look at the states Obama struggled in: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Now West Virginia is Appalachia, but Appalachia also stretches through southeast Ohio, parts of Virginia, and central Pennsylvania. It turns out these are the areas where Obama performed the worst. Obama has done quite well among working class whites in Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, and countless others. Now as to why this is? The jury is still out. The CW in the blogosphere, which I believe myself, seems to be that Appalacian voters are more impoverished, more uneducated, and more cut off from the outside world than pretty much any other voting demographic in the United States. Read the posts, and draw your own conclusions.

Finally, I was elated that John Edwards finally endorsed Barack Obama. I wish this would've come a few months ago, but considering that all Obama needs are a few more knockout punches to dispatch Hillary Clinton, the Edwards endorsement certainly counts as such a punch. Therefore, perhaps Edwards' support comes at just as needy a time. Also, it was classy of Obama to make the announcement in Michigan, considering all the electoral drama encompassing the state in recent weeks. Props to the Obama campaign for a savy political move. An Al Gore endorsement would be ideal right about now, and Obama has indicated that the two converse regularly, but we will just have to wait and see on that front. OK, I'm done. For real!

Photo courtesy of Flickr user dsmyre May 14, 2008

This will never end!

Well a new AP/Ipsos poll shows Hillary Clinton leading St. John of the Straight Talk by 9 points nationally. Needless to say, this is not good news for Barack Obama, who leads McCain by a meager 2 percentage points, i.e. within the poll's margin of error. I'll admit it, it's hard to ask Clinton to drop out when she just won Pennsylvania and she's shallacking McCain in national polls. Everyone talks about how every contest from here on out is a "must win" for Clinton, but let's be honest, they're starting to be "must wins" for Obama as well. If he can somehow pull out victories in Indiana and North Carolina, that would take a lot of the wind out of Clinton's sales. While there are certainly a lot of white working class voters (Obama'a bane) in IN and NC, I think Obama has a decent shot at winning both states. First off, there are a lot of African-Americans in North Carolina, which should hopefully lock it up for him. Plus, look at all the colleges in Indiana: Purdue, Notre Dame, Valparaiso, Butler, University of Indiana, IUPUI, etc. If Obama can continue to turn out college aged voters in Indiana like he has been elsewhere he should be in good shape. Nevertheless, poll results like this will keep both candidates alive for some time.

P.S. These results demonstrate that there is cause for optimism considering that even with Bittergate, the Wright controversy, and faux sniper fire dominating the 24-hour McCain-loving media cycle, both Democratic candidates are running even or ahead of his Maverickness!

The Abercrombie Vote

Well, you already know Barack Obama lost last night, but how about those three dudes behind him with the Abercrombie & Fitch shirts. Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias both have posts on these guys here and here. Read the comments on both posts, they are hilarious! I'm actually really surprised that the Obama campaign let these guys stand behind him. First off, in light of Bittergate, Obama's attempts to reach out to working class voters won't be helped by the presence of three upper-middle class frat boy douchebags. Plus you could see people texting in the background. It was just piss poor coordination by the Obama campaign that resulted in a concession speech mixed with a heavy dose of superficiality. Seriously, the whole thing brought back memories of high school that I've been trying to repress for 5 years! Now, in the end, this really isn't a big deal. It's not going to sink Obama and it's not going to birth another scandal. It just means that Barack Obama was momentarily associated with a segment of American society that prides itself on status symbols and mocho effete.

P.S. I'm pretty sure that's not Larry David behind Obama, but it sure as hell does look like him. David has campaigned for Obama in the past though, so I could be wrong. But I'm gonna stick with it not being him.

Photo used courtesy of flickr user _aa_ April 22, 2008

Update: The Obama Fuck Up

Well, I'm pleased to say that it appears that Hillary Clinton has saved Barack Obama's ass in regards to bittergate. Ezra Klein details in this post how Clinton's decision to latch on to these remarks and make it a campaign issue have resulted in the media dropping the story on its own merits and reframing it as a spat between Obama and Clinton. As we've seen in South Carolina, this type of framing tends to work against Clinton and for Obama. I'll be honest, I really thought this was a huge blow to Obama, but it appears that he has dodged a bullet, at least for the moment. However, I am very happy that I was wrong and I am currently eating my words with a side of cornbeef hash.

Also, today's New York Times column from P-Krug takes a look at the "bitter" comments made by Obama and using a study from his Princeton colleague Larry Bartels comes to the conclusion that Obama was wrong about the voting patterns of the supposedly "bitter" working class whites of rural Pennsylvania. It turns out that the rural working class is much more concerned about economic issues than Obama thought. Once again, I was wrong about this, as I thought Obama was spot on with his comments. Once again, I am proud to eat my words, only this time with a "Love-It" sized "Birthday Cake Remix" from Coldstone.

In conclusion, my name is Scott, and as the title of the blog suggests, I oftentimes DON'T KNOW!!!

The Obama Fuck Up

I'm sure that you've heard what Barack Obama said in San Francisco by now, but if you haven't , here is what he said, "It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Obama said this to explain the supposed "bitterness" among the white working class community. All I can say is...ouch. This could be huge. It's not a good sign that Bill Kristol is already comparing this statement with the writings of Karl Marx in the New York Times [Note: In no way do I think this is a bad thing, however, most people don't understand Marx and equate him with the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Castro]. Hillary has of course jumped all over this, but you can't really blame her, she has to.

Look, the truth of it is, Obama's explanation of working class disenfranchisement is actually pretty much spot-on. Nevertheless, it was an extremely stupid thing to say. Moreover, Obama said this in San Fran-fucking-cisco which makes it that much worse. The charges of liberal elitism and San Francisco values will be flying around for months now. I can't really make a judgement on whether this will sink Obama's candidacy; only time will tell on that front. However, needless to say, this was a major blunder on Obama's part, and it pretty much dwarfs the Wright controversy.

In conclusion...damn!

Hillary, PLEASE STOP!

The picture is becoming clearer everyday: Hillary Clinton does not care about the Democratic party. She's jumping on the meida bandwagon trying to condemn Barack Obama over his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. Josh Marshall has a great post about all of this. Clinton is turning to her sworn enemies to help her smear Obama. I mean the American Spectator, come on Hillary! She's granting interviews to right-wing rags now!?! It's baffling that Hillary Clinton is either completely ignorant of, or apathetic towards the damage she's doing to the Democratic Party. If she somehow manages to steal to the nomination by convincing the superdelegates that she is the more electable candidate, she will have suceeded only in shrinking the Democratic coalition that she will need to win the general election. There is a lot of resentment out there between Obama and Clinton supporters. I'm personally considering staying home, or writing in "Wolverine" or "Batman" if she's the nominee. This has ceased being a matter of convenience and transformed into a matter of political survival. Clinton needs to realize that the longer John McCain has to consolidate his base, the smaller our chances become of gaining the presidency. Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi need to get off their asses and take action. It would also help if Al Gore and John Edwards would just endorse someone already. It seems to me that each would most likely endorse Obama, but I've heard otherwise from some. Either way, their endorsements would lend huge credibility to either candidate and would also likely be accompanied by renewed or additional support. I think we should look into starting a fund to purchase a Wrap It Up Box for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton: McCain Cheerleader?

Jonathan Chait has interesting post up at the Plank examining whether or not Clinton would prefer a general election victory for John McCain over Barack Obama. I guess I'd like to think that Clinton wouldn't want this, and I doubt she does, but you never know. Chait makes a good point that Clinton would be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2012 if Obama were to lose the general, but I think that her chances would be even more lackluster then than they are now. Granted, that assumes that McCain would have a successful first term. I doubt that would be the case, since McCain has shown recently that he has little expertise in pretty much any policy area, leadership included. However, as I've mentioned countless times, the media's love affair with the Saint would likely result in them painting a lovely portrait of a McCain presidency.

Anways, I digress, Chait also hammers on the fact that Clinton really has no shot at picking up the nomination. If she does (somehow) get the nomination, she will have gained it by convincing the superdelegates that Obama is a wanker. If she does that, I really think its safe to say that the Democratic Party will fall into civil war. Clinton has damaged herself in the eyes of many Democrats that would've otherwise supported her had she won the nomination fair and square. It should also be noted that independents and Republicans find Clinton more or less radioactive. It has to suck to be Hillary Clinton, I do still have some sympathy for her as there is no way to determine how much damage the media's coverage of her has done to her campaign. That being said, what's done is done and we have to move forward. Hillary needs to realize that her continued presence in this primary is damaging the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. In short, she just got reelected to another term in the Senate, she should look to the best interests of the people of New York and return to her duties as one of their elected voices.

A Possible Solution

Via Marc Ambinder I found this interesting tidbit regarding the Florida delegate fiasco:

This comes from the ranking Democrat in the State Senate, Steven Geller (who hasn't endorsed anyone), and State Sen. Jeremy Ring. Half the delegates would be awarded on the basis of the Jan. 29 primary; the rest would allocated according to any number of scenarios, including an even split, a split reflecting the national popular vote, a split reflecting the national earned delegate count. To work, it would require both campaigns to sign on, and would require the DNC's credentials committee to approve it, a process that would not really begin until July.

Sounds like it could work. Obviously this means that Hillary Clinton would get more delegates than Obama, but let's face it fellow Obama supporters, if the DNC decides to seat the delegates at all, she's gonna win the state. However, Obama would still get a substantial amount of delegates, and I don't think this would effect his lead too much. At the same time though, it would seat the delegates, and shut the Clinton campaign up.

Um, Brilliant

By way of Jonathan Chait's recommendation, I read Michelle Goldberg's brilliant column for the Gaurdian deriding certain feminists for alleging (in so many words) that refusing to support Hillary Clinton is sexist. Finally! Look, this is just a great piece, and I agree with Chait, you need to take 10 minutes out of your life to read it, because you will emerge smarter. I consider myself a feminist. Yes, I'm a straight male that has no problem saying that I'm a feminist. I am really offended though that people like Gloria Steinem are accusing those of us that support Obama of forgetting about the victimization of woman. There is no doubt that the MSM's treatment of Clinton has been deplorable, but it's not fair to group Obama supporters in with the media. Many, if not most Obama supporters will enthusiastically support Clinton in the general election if she is the nominee. I very highly doubt that this will be the case, but it's true regardless. It's especially unfair for older women to accuse younger women (that overwhelmingly support Obama) of abandoning them. The cold hard truth is that Obama appeals across gender and racial lines, especially among young people. Clinton's base consists of older women, Latinos, and working-class whites. Clinton's lack of support among young women is more a result of demographics than anyone abandoning or shunning the feminist cause.

This is all the more frustrating because people like Steny "I really kind of suck as the Majority Leader" Hoyer are worrying that the ugly gender and racial attacks are hurting the party. What? Which gender attacks are you speaking about Steny!? The Obama campaign has not made gender an issue. As I stated above, the MSM certainly has, but it is patently unfair to accuse the Obama campaign of making gender-based attacks. That's simply not the case. Conversely, the Clinton campaign has made race a centerpiece of their attacks on Obama. The latest example is the public meltdown of the once great Geraldine Ferraro.

In conclusion, it's not fair, and frankly, it's wrong for Clinton supporters to accuse those that don't support their candidate of being sexist. I like Hillary too, and I think she'd be a great president, but please, she's not so great a candidate that the only reason that anyone wouldn't support her is because they are sexist. That's just an offensive and illogical argument. This race has been divisive enough already. Clinton's continued presence has become increasingly toxic. While I consider the fearmongering of Steny Hoyer and others that the campaign will fatally damage the party overblown, the continued racial attacks can only hurt. Hillary needs to accept a dose of reality and end her campaign.

True Progressives

E.J. Dionne has another great column today, this one dealing with Obama and Clinton's channeling of Paul Wellstone in their campaign rhetoric. America lost a great progressive voice in 2002 with the death of Senator Wellstone. I've blogged about this before, but the point bears repeating, it is very encouraging that both Obama and Clinton are talking like progressives in this election. Neither candidate has attempted to outflank the other to the right. One can only hope that this will continue in the general.

Iceman!

The Washington Post has a well-reported article on St. McCain's connections to numerous lobbyists. It turns out that holy John the maverick has more lobbyists working on his campaign than any other candidate this election cycle, Democrat or Republican. That is what I think is most telling about this Vicki Iseman story. While the possible affair is interesting, and relevant, since it speaks to McCain's supposedly impeccable character, the real story is the favors he did for her clients. St. McCain casts himself as the enemy of lobbyists and special interests, he claims to be a "maverick" Republican that always puts the nation's interests before those of corporations and their beltway lobbyists. All this is clearly bullshit. With the possible exception of Mitt Romney, John McCain may very well be the fakest presidential candidate in decades. He's a hypocrite people, and a liar.

Gabriel Sherman has a fascinating piece over at the New Republic that details the run-up to the Times' publishing of the Iseman article. It's very unfortunate that Bill Keller decided to wait as long as he did before publishing the story. As Josh Marshall reported the other day, it seems that the Times nows much more than they are letting on. In a way, like Marc Cooper said yesturday, McCain should be thanking the Times. The conservative base, that was once wary of McCain, seems to be rallying to defend him. The media, especially the assholes over at MSNBC (of course with the exception of the great Keith Olbermann) are turing this into a story about the Times. Really it's all very sad. The media seems to be willing to do just about anything to defend their hero, John McCain. While I still think this story can be damaging to him, it's not going to have nearly the same effect on him as it would on any other candidate. This is a sad commentary on the state of media in this country, one can only hope for better days.

P.S. I know that Vicki Iseman isn't pronounced like Iceman, but honestly, who doesn't like Iceman? Wait to go, Bobby Drake!

Well Played Wisconsin!

As I'm sure you know by now, Obama won Wisconsin. It looks like he'll be walking away with 38 additional delegates to Clinton's 27. Obama made significant inroads into working class voters last night and he won every age group under 65. This is very encouraging, especially as far as working class voters are concerned. He will need their support to have any shot in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I'm still not willing to count Clinton out, she's a brillinat person, and I'm sure she has few more cards to play. That being said, in order for her candidacy to remain viable, she's going to have to win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania by huge margins. While this is not impossible, it is highly unlikely. Obama will get lots of positive media coverage as a result of his win in Wisconsin. Consequently, he will move up in the polls. Should be an interesting two weeks.

P.S. I still maintain that Chris Matthews is an ass, but this take-down of Texas State Senator (and Obama supporter) Kirk Watson is just damn good journalism.

Shady

Ezra Klein has two must read posts today, here and here. Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman, a good Senator, and she would probably be a pretty good president. However, some of the tactics she's rumored to be planning to garner the nomination, as Klein lays out in his posts, would literally tear the party apart. If Clinton were to steal the nomination, it would just be more fodder for the Republicans to hurl at her come November. I'm not as of yet too concerned about this. Despite what the media says, Clinton is still in this race. In fact, Clinton still has a reasonable shot at winning the race. That being said, as Josh Green details in his fantastic report over at the Atlantic, the Clinton campaign is obviously in disarray. My thinking is that as long as Clinton doesn't win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Obama pretty much has this thing locked up (that is, minus any shady dealings by the Clinton campaign). I'm hoping that Howard Dean, Clinton, and Obama can come to some kind of agreement. This election brings with it the best oppurtunity for Democrats to make huge gains that we're going to get for a long, long time. One can only hope that individual ambition does not derail this oppurtunity for the collective good.

P.S. Maureen Dowd has gasp! a very good and fair column on Hillary Clinton. I miss the old Maureen, but she's had a few good columns in a role now, I hope this means that she's back!

Who Knows?

Walter Shapiro's article outlining several different conclusions to the Democratic primary is really worth a read. The CW has it, correcty, in my view, that a nominee pushed over the edge by superdelegates would be very bad for the party. I'm optimistic that this won't happen, but it certainly looks like this race could very well drag on into June. This isn't necessarily all bad. If the race does go on into June that means that John McCain will not have as much time to construct a line of attack on a presumptive Dem nominee. When it was all but certain that Kerry had the nomination by mid February in '04, Bush began the flip-flop argument very early and the media coalesced around it, and the argument stuck. It looks like St. McCain will not have this luxury.

On the flip side, this could allow McCain crucial time to mend his image with the GOP base. However, considering how some of the right-wing noise machines heavy hitters have sounded off in recent weeks, no amount of time may be sufficient for St. McCain to make things right.

Death to the DLC

There are at least two points I disagree with in this post. First, Stephen Suh condemns the Democrats for their DLC-advocated move to the center (aka right). Before he makes this point he criticizes them for running away from Bill Clinton. However, last I heard, Bill Clinton was the poster boy of the DLC. The DLC, for those of you that aren't familiar with it, is the Democratic Leadership Council. They frequently advocate for the Democrats to embrace the business wing of the party and move towards the center. Bill Clinton's strategy of triangulation was a move to the center. Don't get me wrong I think Bill Clinton was a great president but he certainly wasn't a liberal. Running away from the labor movement and insisting on welfare reform seems to be exactly the type of thing that the GOP could embrace, and they did, while Clinton was in office. Therefore, Mr. Suh is contradicting himself when he argues that the party should not run away from Bill Clinton and should embrace thier progressive roots. Personally, I don't think you can do both. If you want to be another Bill Clinton, you have to embrace the center and distance yourself from the base.

The other point I disagree with is Suh's suggestion that Barack Obama is running away from the Democratic party:

And Obama has already begun running away from Clinton and away from the Democratic party. This kind of thing, once started, won't stop here. Hillary and Obama are tied, and the gloves are going to come off - even Mr. Nice-and-Civil is going to get rougher as time goes on. This kind of thing also cannot be undone. We can't make this rhetoric, these flyers, go away during the general election. Every time Obama makes this campaign a referendum about Bill Clinton's presidency and/or personal characteristics, he's playing along with the GOP's favorite strategy.

And he will lose in November - to McCain, to Romney, to Huckabee or to a handkerchief with George Bush's morning noseblow on it. Because those Americans who don't live in DC, who aren't addicted to political coverage and who don't attend Georgetown cocktail parties want a choice - a real choice, not one between McCain's crazy brand of Republicanism vs. Obama's more genteel and civil brand of Republicanism-lite.

Stephen should've read this fantastic article by Ezra Klein. Both Obama and Clinton have embraced the progressive cause. They have both utilize rhetoric that has sung the praises of positive government action. Barack Obama is not running away from the Democratic party, and neither is Hillary Clinton. Both candidates are far more liberal than Bill Clinton. Democrats should be excited that their nominee, whether it's Obama or Clinton, will be a standard bearer for the progressive movement.