Geraldine Ferraro...Not a Racist; This Guy...Definitely a Racist

In case you were wondering, the above video is of Jeremiah Wright, Obama's "spiritual advisor", former pastor, and current member of the Obama campaign.  Wright has previously made comments that include saying that the U.S. brought on 9/11 itself as well as stating that blacks should not sing "God Bless America", but rather, "God damn America".  

Now let's see if the media holds Wright and Obama to the same standard they held Clinton and Ferraro.  After all, Wright's comments were undoubtedly racist and he is still on the campaign.  Ferraro's were not racist in any way, and she is now gone from the campaign.  Yet, tomorrow morning the Ferraro bashing will continue and this story will be largely ignored.  It's just another case of media bias.  

My Special Comment To Keith Olbermann

Keith, you have crossed the line.  Gone are the days of you being a commentator who provided an alternative to Fox News.  You have now become just another Bill O’Reilly---someone so obsessed with himself and his ego that he must go after individual politicians who he personally dislikes.

Keith, you say that you don’t endorse Barack Obama.  Exactly who do you think you’re kidding?  For the past 2 months, you have gone after Sen. Clinton night after night while providing glowing commentary on Obama.  Your disdain for the Clintons is evident and your love for Barack Obama is well-known.

Keith, you indeed  need to apologize to Sen. Clinton.  You, last night, implied that she is a racist and compared her to David Duke.  That is absolutely disgusting.  The Clintons have done more for the African American community than any other politican in the last 35 years.

Secondly Keith, you and everyone else in the media should be ashamed by the way you've spun Geraldine Ferraro's comments.  Did you bother to read them?  Did you bother to look at the facts on which Ferraro based her remarks?  Why do you think Obama has done so well in South Carolina, in Georgia, in Alabama, in Louisiana, in Mississippi?  What do you think proved to be the deciding factor in the extremely close primary in Missouri?  I’ll tell you Keith: the African American vote. 

Why is it suddenly taboo to say the truth?  Is it that you truly think that Obama, if he weren’t African American, would get 85-90% of the black vote?  Are you that blind Keith?  

It’s not that I or Ferraro, as she has explained, finds any fault nor is it degrading for African Americans to vote for their own.  I, as many, understand the pride African Americans must have voting for one of their own.  As do women concerning Sen. Clinton.  Is it racist to say that the only reason Obama is getting such a large chunk of black votes is because he himself is black?  Is it racist to say that Obama would have not likely won South Carolina, Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi if he were indeed white?  Of course it isn’t.  It’s not that Obama has a message that is so overly appealing to African Americans as compared to Sen. Clinton's.  

Again, I stress that it is not a bad thing for African Americans to vote for Obama.  But, Keith, it is a bad thing, no, a horrible thing, for you to say that anyone who says what I've just said is racist.

No one has said that the only reason Obama is where he is is because he is black.  But it is undeniably one factor.  We shouldn’t be so politically correct and censored that we can’t say that.  Obama has run a terrific campaign.  He is a great speaker.  He has energized people of all races, men and women.  But he has won many contests because he is black.  That is a fact backed up by the exit polls.

So, Keith, get off Ferraro’s back for stating the truth that others are simply afraid to say.  I'm not sure why they're afriad, since she didn’t say anything degrading or anything to belittle Obama, but whatever.  She simply stated her analysis---which happens to be backed up by the exit polls.

And lastly, Keith, you say that Clinton is dividing the party?  Excuse me?  Who injected race into the battle for South Carolina when his campaign released memos accusing the Clintons of racism?  Who dug up this Ferraro comment?  Who refused to rise above the fray and won’t let this harmless story rest?  Who has spun this quote from Ferraro from a simple analysis of the race at hand, into a sign of racism?  You know the answer Keith---the Obama campaign.

And you, by posting your disgusting special comment and continuing your daily bias coverage of this campaign, are dividing this great party.  

Not only should you apologize, but you should be removed from MSNBC’s election night coverage.  You have let your personal opinions get in the way of what you’re supposed to be doing---covering a particular election.

I once though you were going to bring a voice for progressives to the world of cable news, but instead you brought a voice for one candidate----Barack Obama.  You have implied, as recently as last night, that Clinton should not be considered a Democrat and neither should her supporters.  Well, Keith, I am a Clinton supporter and I am a Democrat.  What are you, though, Keith?  I’ll tell you: just another pundit who can’t give fair coverage or analysis of anyone or anything for anything.  If it doesn’t help your candidate, Barack Obama, it doesn’t get on your show.  But if it does help him, you’ll spend days on it.  

My request: stop thinking and reporting as if only Barack Obama is right on everything and everyone else is scum.  Hillary Clinton is not scum.  Bill Clinton is not scum.  Geraldine Ferraro is not scum.  For that matter, Barack Obama is not scum. But you, Keith, might just be.---

Keith Olbermann: today’s worst person in the world!!!

MSNBC's New Line-up & A Review Of Their Current One

MSNBC will be changing up it's line-up as of next Monday.  Tucker Carlson's show will be getting the ax, replaced by a show hosted by David Gregory.  Andrea Mitchell will now be anchoring the news everyday from 1-2 p.m.  Live with Dan Abrams will be undergoing a name change.  Other than that, MSNBC's current programing line-up will, for the most part, stay in tact. With that said, he are my hopes and reviews of the current and future programming on MSNBC.

Morning Joe

I start off every morning watching Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe.  Despite my opposing views with Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, I must say, I do enjoy the show.  They usually have a great variety of guests on the show and the exchanges between conservative Scarborough and liberal Brzezinski are priceless.  The one thing I must complain about, however, is Brzezinski's new found bias for Barack Obama.  I enjoyed the show, and her, much more when she was simply the liberal and Scarborough was simply the conservative and broad topics were discussed in relationship to the two parties.  Now, Brzezinski finds a way to make everything about Obama, even if the topic does not involve him or his campaign.  You get the feeling she is pushing him down your throats, and after a while, it gets really old.

MSNBC Daytime News

Not much to say here.  I don't hate MSNBC news, nor do I love it.  Truthfully, the only time I actually find myself tuning in to MSNBC daytime is when it's what they call "Super Tuesday", their all day political coverage, which is actually quite good.

Hardball

I used to be repulsed at Chris Matthews and his blatant bias, but he has been getting better.  He rarely takes sides any more in arguments and debates, and thats a huge improvement  And when you tone down Matthews' bias and listen to what this man actually has to say, you realize that he is a fascinating guy who knows more than most will ever know about politics.  For that reason, I have once again found myself a fan of Hardball, and if Matthews keeps behaving the way he is now, I will remain a fan.  It's so much nicer to hear Chris give his insights and analysis of politics in general and it's mechanics, rather than gushing over one candidate while constantly demeaning and degrading the other.  

Countdown

Keith Olbermann, to say it simply, has become the liberal Bill O'Reilly.  Keith used to be objective and would offer a straight forward analysis of the top stories of the day based on facts.  Now, it's the Keith loves Barack show.  Keith has recently, in essence, accused everyone who supports Sen. Clinton of being a racist and a Republican in disguise.  He appears amazed every night that the entire nation doesn't bow down and worship Obama as he has apparently become accustomed to.  And some would say that the "liberal Bill O'Reilly" is exactly what the Democratic party needs.  I counter by saying absolutely not. We need someone in the media who doesn't take the side of one candidate over the other, but rather challenges the conventional wisdom.  Keith used to be that person.  But now, he has let his ego get the best of him.  His show has become more focused on attacking the Clintons and tearing down their supporters than anything else.  The vibe Keith now puts out, rather than standing up to convention wisdom, is that you're only right; you're only a Democrat; you're only an America if you love Barack Obama and hate Hillary Clinton.  It has become painful to watch Olbermann degenerate as he has.  He used to be the best on MSNBC; now he's the worst.  

Live with Dan Abrams

Starting on Monday, Live with Dan Abrams will become Verdict with Dan Abrams.  Hopefully, despite the name change, the show will stay the same since Dan is now my top guy to watch on MSNBC.  Why?  Because, when I watch him, I feel like I'm actually getting a fair, balanced view-point, without any political bias.  His "On Their Trail" segment is one of the best in television.  He takes on Obama as much as he does Clinton and vice-versa.  And although I don't always agree with his calls on who's right and who's wrong, I will admit that he calls them as he sees them.  Many nights Obama has come away with more "X's" than Clinton and vice-versa.  Also, his two most frequent guests, Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow, also make for great television as they argue and debate the issues.  I just hope that with the new name, Abrams keeps up his fairness and objectivity.  It does this country a great deal.

Tucker

Thank god Tucker got canceled.  Admittedly, Tucker's show was good at times, but only good when he had a good panel on to access the day's political headlines.  Tucker Carlson himself added nothing substantive to the show.  The show was only good if the panelists made it good.  And although the key to any good political show is a good variety of guests, the host has to bring something to the table as well.  Tucker didn't.  Let's hope his successor does.

Race to the White House

Yup, thats the name of the show, hosted by David Gregory, that will succeed Tucker.  I'm interested to see how Gregory will do.  Will Race to the White House be a more serious toned show, like Meet the Press, or more loose and free formed like Hardball and Live with Dan Abrams? I'm not sure, but I would be happy with either.  The political junkie in me loves the serious toned, old school political discussions (even though I'm quite young) that take place on Meet the Press and like shows, but I also love the arguments and heated exchanges that are allowed to develop on the more free-formed shows.  I will say that they probably could have found a better host if they were going for a free-formed show, such as picking Rachel Maddow or Pat Buchanan. If it's a serious toned political discussion type show, Gregory should do well.  

On a side note: I'm still begging for MSNBC to get a Crossfire-like program with two hosts from opposing political views. They need to have a Buchanan vs. Maddow show. That would be gold.  But until then, we get David Gregory.  I hope he does good, but honestly, it's not as if Tucker set the bar all that high.  

Political Distraction -- A Case In Point

Will Senator Clinton choose Obama to be her V.P. if she is the Democratic nominee?  Will Senator Obama choose Clinton to be his V.P. if he wins the nomination?  The answer to both is no.

 

The subject makes great fodder for journalists and pundits who have too much time on air to fill, but the fact is that neither candidate has said they would choose their opponent to be the V.P.  People need to listen to what the candidates say and not what their campaign people say.  Campaign people will spin anything as a storyline even when there is no story.  It is part of the process to keep reporters up to date and to satisfy their desire to create news.

 

That is why reporters and journalists have a panel of so called experts to debate what a candidate said after the debates.  Depending on who the reporter, journalist, or panel member supports, it will reflect what they say about that candidate after the debate.  They even like to read into what a candidate says when there is nothing there. They overanalyze just for the heck of it, which does absolutely nothing for the American people.  

 

The ball that the people have to keep their eye on is what the candidates themselves say.  The people should put aside any notion of Clinton or Obama being a V.P. choice.  The words 'dream ticket or dream team" is just that, a dream.  The American people should not be distracted during the primaries.  The main issue is still the same: which candidate is the most qualified to be the Democratic nominee and potential Commander-in-Chief.

The Spitzer Scandal: My Take

I'll start off by saying that I was never a huge fan of Eliot Spitzer; I didn't see what others apparently did---a future President.  At the same time, however, I never thought he would face a scandal like the one he currently is.  All in all, I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing.  Here's my take:

First of all, I always feel terrible for politicians and their families when their personal lives get aired for the whole world to see.  My feeling is that if what a politician is doing personally doesn't effect the public, then the public has no reason to know.  After all, we elect leaders to do a job, and that job is to take care of us.  If they do that job, then that should be enough for us to know.  The perfect example, of course, is the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.  I'm certainly not saying what Bill was doing was okay, but it in no way was any business of the public's.  President Clinton was a fantastic President, and his personal life obviously didn't get in the way of that.   

In many ways, however, Spitzer's case is different.  Spitzer wasn't just having an extramarital affair, which is not illegal, he was involved with a prostitute, which, of course, is illegal.  And it's not so much the fact that he hired a prostitute that makes me mad, it's the fact that he spent the better part of his life going after and prosecuting people severely for the exact same act he has now been caught engaging in.  If there's one thing that gets me mad at elected leaders, it's hypocrisy.  And by engaging in the acts he allegedly did, Eliot Spitzer is just that, a hypocrite.  

It's for that reason that I believe Gov. Spitzer should resign.  Not because he absolutely has to, but because he portrayed himself to the public as someone he was not.  It's the exact same hypocrisy that made me so outraged over the Larry Craig and David Vitter scandals---they ran on high ethics and morality, yet were involved in controversial sexual acts. I called for Craig and Vitter to resign over their hypocrisy (they didn't), so to be fair, I must ask the same of Spitzer.  The difference, however, is that I think Spitzer has the decency to know that what he did was a clear violation of public trust and because of that, I know that he will do the right thing and step down as Governor of New York within the next few days.  

Geraldine Ferraro: Facing the Facts

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.  And if he was a woman, of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Those were the words of 1984 Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee, Geraldine Ferraro.  For those comments, Ferraro has been thrown under the bus by every last person in the media as well as every blogger out there.  Well, not this blogger. 

Okay, I admit, the way it was said, or at least written, comes off rather harsh.  But instead of blatantly accusing Ferraro of being a racist, why doesn't anybody ask the simple question, "does she have a point?"

Indeed, Ferraro does have a point and, for that matter, it is one of many points I have made several times to friends who have come to think of me as the come-to-political-guru and ask me over and over again what are the keys to Obama's successes.  

Let's look at the facts and think here.  Why is Obama where he is now, on the verge of becoming the Democratic nominee?  It's in large part due to African American support.  Exactly how many primaries has he won by winning whites?  Not many.  Turn the question around: why did Obama win South Carolina?  The Answer: Because of overwhelming African American support.  Same thing with the primaries in Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, and Mississippi.  Obama lost the white vote in those states.  If it weren't for deep African American support, Obama would not be where he is, it's as simple as that.  

With that being said, I think it's important to note that there is nothing wrong with a particular group voting for "their own".  We saw it with John Kennedy and Catholics.  We see it today with Sen. Clinton and women.  We saw it for years and years with white males voting for white males.  There is a sense of pride with voting for one's own, and I understand that.  As I've said, there's nothing wrong with it, so why deny it's happening.  It is happening and anyone who believes otherwise is living in an alternate universe.  There is no way anyone can convince me that African Americans would support Obama 90-10 if Obama was white.  So yes, in that way, Obama's ethnicity is a huge plus.  He would not be the near-nominee without the immense support of African Americans, since he would have lost most of the primaries that he has won.  

The final thing I want to say is that I couldn't agree more with Ferraro's statement, "if he was a woman, of any color, he would not be in this position".  Let's be honest with ourselves, if a woman ran for President with as little experience as Barack Obama, she would be laughed off the stage.  Many say they can picture Obama as Commander-in-Chief, but if Obama was a woman, I can guarantee he would not be even thought of as a Commander-in-Chief.  There is a different standard out there for men and women, especially in politics, and I hope everyone can realize that.  

Ferraro's comments, although said in a less than appealing way, are not at all inaccurate and, in fact, hold a great deal of truth.  It's not that it's bad Obama is where he is because he is an African American, because it isn't, but it is a fact. Take away Obama's African American support, you take away his big South Carolina win, which in turns takes away the momentum he had heading into Super Tuesday, which in turns takes away several of his Super Tuesday wins, which in turns takes away his momentum after February 5, which in turn would take away his sweep of the remaining February contests, which in turn would leave him no where as of right now, which in turn would validate Ferraro's remarks.  Again, and I want to stress this, there is nothing derogatory  about saying Obama is where he is because of his race, personally I think it's great that an African American has a valid shot at the Presidency, but it is a fact that being an African American has helped Obama.  It's backed up by exit polls and shear common knowledge concerning the society we live in. 

P.S.: And I know that there are those who say Obama's race hurts him more than it helps.  I'll admit that it might hurt him in some key areas, such as the South, where remnants of racism are still very prevalent,  but even in the South, whites aren't voting AGAINST Obama in the numbers that African Americans are voting FOR him.  So that argument, in my opinion, is a bust.  

UPDATE: As I was writing this, I came across some quotes from NBC where Ferraro apparently elaborated on her previous comments.  The following is from NBC's First Read:

"Ferraro said she was simply stating an obvious truth, as seen in exit polls that show Obama taking as much as 80 percent of the black vote in the Democratic primaries.

"In all honesty, do you think that if he were a white male, there would be a reason for the black community to get excited for a historic first?' Ferraro said. 'Am I pointing out something that doesn't exist?' ...

Ferraro said she was not trying to diminish Obama's candidacy, and acknowledged up front that she would not have been the vice presidential nominee in 1984 if she had been a man.

"But she also echoed remarks of feminist leaders like Gloria Steinem, who argued in the New York Times that Obama would not have succeeded if he were a woman because gender is 'the most restricting force in American life.'

" 'Sexism is a bigger problem,' Ferraro argued. 'It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist.'"

(On a personal note, at least when I'm talking to friends and others, sexism is very much a problem in today's world.  As progressive as I may be, I have many conservative/moderate friends.  Many would never say they didn't support Obama because he is black.  Maybe they feel that way, I don't know since I can't get in their minds, but they don't nor would they ever imply they are racist.  They do, however, have no problem saying that women (in general) are not qualified to be President and therefore they can not support Hillary Clinton nor could they support any woman who ever ran for President.  Trust me, statements like that have lead to many, many arguments.)  

Florida & Michigan: What Should Be Done?

As is well known, the Democratic National Committee stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates for moving their primaries up before February 5.  Now, with the race essentially tied, Democrats are looking to Florida and Michigan to help decide this nomination.  I think we can all agree that Florida and Michigan need to be seated at the convention, the only question is how. Several proposals have been put on the table and here are my take on each of them:

1) Let the Florida and Michigan Delegations be Seated According to their January Results.

I myself would be fine with this solution.  It wouldn't waste any of Michigan or Florida's taxpayers' money nor would it force the DNC or the candidates themselves to put out valuable money.  

Florida was a fair playing field.  Neither Clinton nor Obama campaigned there and both abided by the rules. Their names, however, remained on the ballot.  Over a million Democrats showed up to the polls and voted. Some argue that Obama wasn't known to the Florida voters, and therefore had no shot at winning.  Well, with that logic, neither did Sen. Clinton.  But the truth is that both were well known by the end of January. Obama had received an overdose of media attention, all positive for that matter, following his big wins in Iowa and South Carolina.  By January 29, I'm sure that 99% of Democrats in this country knew who Sen. Barack Obama was.  With all that being known, the voters of Florida still showed up in enormous numbers to have their voices heard, and their voices should be respected. 

Michigan is a different story.  Obama did not have his name on the ballot there. He had taken his name off even though this act was not required by the DNC pledge and although Gov. Granholm had asked all the candidates to remain on the ballot.  But come election day, Obama and Edwards urged their supporters to show up to the polls and vote "uncommitted".  "Uncommitted" received 40% of the vote, a speculative combination of the votes that Obama and Edwards would have received.  Here's what I would be willing to do: have all of those "uncommitted" delegates vote for Sen. Obama.  This would make the state total 40% Obama, 55% Clinton.  This would be a fair way to seat Michigan delegates.  The only problem I see with giving 100% of the "uncommitted" vote to Obama would be that some voters, who voted for Edwards, would have voted for Clinton had Edwards not been in the race.  But with that being said, I still believe that would be a fair way to sort through the mess with Florida and Michigan.  Keep in mind that I was against this penalization of Florida and Michigan back in the fall, before this mess was even started.  It's not as if I'm flip-flopping to help one candidate over another.  I always had thought that the original votes should have counted, even before they happened.

2) Split the Delegations 50-50

Some have suggested that the Florida and Michigan delegations be split: half for Obama, half for Clinton.  I say that if you're going to go that route, you might as well not even count Florida or Michigan.  The point of a primary election is to let the people of a particular state vote for who they want to be President.  If you're going to not even worry about what the people decided, why even bother seating the delegates?  It's just as disenfranchising to voters to discount their wishes as it is to not even ask them what their wishes are.

3) Caucuses to Determine the Delegates

Again, this is the wrong way to go.  Caucuses are, in many ways, undemocratic.  Those who can't get out of their houses don't get their voices heard.  Those who would normally vote absentee don't get their voices heard.  Those who work shifts that occur during the caucus time frame, don't get their voices heard.  Those who are uncomfortable with sharing their political opinions in front of their friends, neighbors, bosses, etc., don't get their voices heard.  And to top it all off, Florida and Michigan are not used to caucuses.  They don't have systems, like Iowa, that have been perfected over years. Many things could go wrong and many traditional voters, who are unaccustomed to caucusing, might just not show up. This election is too important for all those things; caucuses are the wrong option.

4) Hold New Primaries

I'm open to this.  Again, I don't think that the taxpayers of Florida and Michigan should have to pay for another election, nor do I think that the DNC or the candidates should have to either.  But at the same time, this is the next best solution, next to having the delegations seated as they were originally determined.  Primaries wouldn't disenfranchise voters and would give all voters a chance to participate.  

____________________________________________________________

All in all, I don't think there is one perfect solution, but there are those which are better than others.  We must make sure that the people of Florida and Michigan have their voices heard and respected.  For that reason alone, not to mention that Florida and Michigan are crucial swing states come November, a solution to this mess must be figured out and Florida and Michigan must have their delegations seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. 

Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island: 3 Out of 4 Isn't So Bad

Senator Clinton's victory in the above states have set the stage for the final showdown for the Democratic nomination going into these final primaries. 

 

It was not only a great win for Senator Clinton, but a great win for the American people, because these victories proved talking about the issues and solutions were more important to the country than a message of change that has yet to be defined.  Senator Clinton has talked about the issues and what she would do if elected President since day one.  

 

Journalists and pundits on MSNBC, Fox News, and some on CNN were openly talking about Clinton dropping out the race after the primaries Tuesday night.  They did not even give her a chance and were openly supporting and pushing her opponent.  Mike Barnacle said on Morning Joe this past week that journalists should not be in the business of urging candidates to drop out.  Rather, they should stick to their jobs of reporting the news.  He is so right, but journalists as a whole will never change.  Just remember Yogi Berra's golden rule, " It ain't over till its over".

 

This has been a great Democratic race and there should be no rush to conclusion just because the Republican nominee is already chosen.  The people have a right to have their voice heard and when the general election rolls around, the Democratic nominee will be strong and prevail.

 

Lets see how television journalists handle the rest of the Democratic primaries.  I will be willing to bet their presentations will continue to be negative concerning Senator Clinton. 

Clinton vs. Obama: Who's Stronger Come November?

First of all, let's ask ourselves what states are key to victory in November for the Democrats?  If you're like me, you don't say Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Alabama, or the like.  Rather, states such as Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio probably come to mind.  Well, Survey USA just released some very interesting poll results, pitting John McCain against both Clinton and Obama in those three key states.

-Pennsylvania:  Building on what I said in an earlier post, Sen. Clinton has appeal to those so called "Reagan-Democrats", which make up a large portion of voters in states such as Pennsylvania.  Obama has yet to prove that he can appeal to those voters.  The latest polling from Pennsylvania confirms that indeed Sen. Clinton is stronger with working class voters that Obama; she would win against McCain.  On the flip side, Obama would lose by 5.  

-Ohio: Good news for Democrats concerning the state of Ohio.  In the latest poll, both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama lead McCain by 10%, a considerable margin.  It appears Ohio is finally going blue.  

-Florida: Perhaps the most notorious state in recent Presidential elections, Florida could once again prove decisive in 2008. In the latest polling, Clinton would beat McCain by a significant nine points.  Obama, in contrast, would lose to McCain.  

My conclusion is this: it's still way too early to say for sure which states are certain for which candidate, but these latest polls at least give us something to go by.  And if you go by them, it reinforces the point I've been trying to make which is that Clinton performs better in the swing states than does Obama. Why the inconsistency with national general election polling? Here's my explanation: Obama does do better than Clinton in some southern and mountain-west states, but still does not win them.  For example, in Utah, the latest polling has Clinton losing by 38, while Obama only loses by 11.  This means that in national polling, he may get more pure votes, but it's the electoral votes that will decide this election.  Thats why state by state polling for the general is so much more accurate than broad, national polling.  In addition, these are the polls Democrats should look at when deciding which candidate is more electable.  It's about winning the swing states, not almost winning the small states.   

To view all of the state-by-state polling I used in this post, conducted by Survey USA, please click here.  

The Daily Dose---2/27

And the Race Continues

It's two days later and I'm still shocked (and pleased) that Sen. Hillary Clinton pulled out three larger-than-expected wins in the Texas, Rhode Island, and Ohio primaries.  Although many Obama supporters are crying foul (I'm not sure why, she did win fair and square), the losses in these three states open up some serious questions about Obama's efficiency as a candidate.  First of all, with all the momentum and wind at his back, why couldn't Obama win Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island?  Secondly, why did Obama perform so poorly in these states compared to how he was polling in recent days?  Most polls had Obama losing by only 5-8 in Rhode Island (he lost by 18), losing Ohio only by 1-4 points (he lost by 10), and winning Texas by 2-4 (he lost by 4).  This tells me several things.  For one, Obama is not a strong of a candidate as many claim.  Secondly, Obama performs poorly under attack.  And lastly, simply put, Clinton, not Obama, had the message which resonated with the voters.

Exit Polling and What it Portends in the Keystone State

Exit polling from Tuesday's contests tells the story on Clinton's success. For one, Clinton won over white men significantly in Ohio and Rhode Island, and by a little less in Texas.  That is a major improvement as she has been losing white men in almost all of the contests since Super Tuesday.  Clinton also expanded her lead among Latinos, which allowed her to run up huge margins in Southern and Western Texas.  Also important to note, Latinos are a key swing group in the general election.  They could deliver New Mexico and Nevada to the Dems.  Clinton can carry them.  Can Obama?  My feeling is that Latinos would vote Republican again, as they did in '04, if Obama is the nominee.  Clinton also won those blue-collar workers by a larger margin than almost any other contest to date.  These are the "Reagan-Democrats". They would vote for Clinton come November, but again I'll ask the question, will they vote for Obama?  Hopefully, but McCain does have appeal to them.  Clinton also won seniors and those over 55 by her largest margin yet.  

So what does this mean for Pennsylvania?  It means that if Clinton can do what she did in Tuesday's contests, especially Ohio, in Pennsylvania, she can win, and win big.  Pennsylvania is more Ohio than Ohio is, if that makes any sense.  Pennsylvania has fewer African Americans, many more seniors, less young voters, and is even more "blue-collar".  The Pennsylvania primary is also closed, which means no Independents or Republicans can vote on April 22. These statistics don't mean we should count Obama out in Pennsylvania, but it does mean that he has a tough seven weeks ahead.  If things continue on the current path, Clinton could win on April 22 by a significant margin.

A Personal Note

I must say that I'm really getting sick and tired of listening to Obama supporters on other blogs talk about how if Obama isn't nominated, millions of people who voted for him will sit the election out.  Therefore, in their logic, we must nominate Obama or face certain defeat.  

Well, news flash to them, millions of people have also supported and voted for Sen. Clinton.  Is there any basis for believing that Obama supporters are more likely to be pissed come November than Clinton supporters?  It's almost as if, in their mind, they think that their candidate is so great, that if he is nominated no one will be hurt, but if he is not nominated, the whole world will be hurt.  

Listen, this isn't about me.  I prefer Sen. Clinton and I think she would be a better President, but if Sen. Obama is the nominee, I will support him and work my hardest for him.  But to imply that Clinton's supporters won't be hurt if she doesn't get the nomination is ridiculous.  At the end of this, we are looking at a 50.1-49.9% split for one candidate over the other.  That means that almost half the party won't have the candidate they supported as the nominee.  Trust me, I've talked to many people, especially women, who tell me they would be absolutely devastated and sit out the election if Obama is the nominee.  I try to tell them otherwise, but they are adamant, just as adamant as any Obama supporter. 

So my message to Democrats out there is this: One candidate is not going to lose any more support than the other would if nominated.  Regardless of who the nominee is, some will be hurt, but not a disproportional number for one side over the other either.  Our work, as Democrats and as Americans, is to unite this party and unite this country to elect the best person to the Presidency.  And although some of us may support Sen. Clinton, and others Sen. Obama, I think we can all agree that either of them would be better than McCain.  So let's have a great campaign and choose a nominee, but let's remember that there is always another view.  I think we would do ourselves and each other a great deal to keep that in mind.