The arguments Hillary hasn’t been able to sell
Hillary won big yesterday in West Virginia. Really, really big.
And it couldn’t matter less.
Once again, the press is filled with pleas for her to go. Now. Clean out her desk and her locker and turn in her keys, and quit ruining the fun for everybody else.
The math is clear; she is about to be eliminated. Nothing can save her short of a host of superdelegates charging over to her side, and why would they? Everybody loves a winner, a frontrunner, and in this case that’s the younger and more charismatic and even more politically correct (race trumping gender in the victim sweepstakes every time) Obama.
Hillary keeps claiming she’s more electable; that Obama appeals to highly educated elite whites and to the vast majority of blacks, and to young people, whereas she appeals to the vaster working class block of whites and to many women. This is widely interpreted as a coded form of racism in a climate in which the mere mention of racial differences that clearly exist has become racism itself (so much for that open and honest dialogue we were supposed to have on the subject).
But Hillary hasn’t been able to make enough of what I see as two powerful arguments in her favor. The first is that the only reason she’s not way ahead in the primaries is that the Democrats abandoned the winner-take-all system. Also, a great many of Obama’s wins were in caucuses, which do not reflect the will of the ordinary voters. The second is that those who point to Obama’s strengths with white voters are using data from primaries that occurred before the Wright revelations.
I did a little quick math of my own by going here and reviewing the state-by-state primary results. If one adds up the total delegates to be awarded by primaries and uses a winner-take-all system, eliminating caucuses, Hillary leads by about 500 delegates. If you add in all the caucus states (almost all of which Obama won), she still leads, although by “only” about 150 delegates.
And then there’s argument two, the indisputable fact that Obama has not done well with white voters since Wright. This is not about racism, but about voters’ perceptions that Obama either agrees with Wright’s extremely leftist (and racist, by the way) views, or winked at them, or lacked the courage to disown them when he should have. Either way, not a good thing.
Fortunately, most people have more common sense than Camille Paglia, whose piece in Salon calls concerns about Obama’s possible extremism “outlandish” and states that her one reservation about Obama, that he might be insufficiently familiar with “the history, passions and aspirations of African-American culture,” was put to rest when she learned of his 20-year membership in Wright’s church.
The Democratic Party and the superdelegates seem determined to ignore these two facts in the rush to nominate their golden boy. And they just might be correct in assuming it won’t hurt them because the country is so deeply desirous of electing a Democrat to the Presidency in 2008. Any Democrat.
But of one thing you can be certain: if Obama is nominated and loses the election, the claim will be that he was defeated because this country is so racist. This despite the fact that a major party will have nominated a black for President for the first time, and despite the fact that Obama has so many skeleton/acquaintances and left/liberal viewpoints in his closet that it might actually give thinking people pause. To claim freedom from racism these days, one must be willing not only to elect a black President; one must be willing to elect this black President. Nothing less will do.
Hillary is dropping out in June (she has been mentioning June since Obama starting sweeping the primaries), which she attributes to how long Bill Clinton fought in ’92. I doubt she’ll go back on it.
“if Obama is nominated and loses the election, the claim will be that he was defeated because this country is so racist.”
This is one of the reasons why I started moving away from the left (started in High School), the simple acts of baseless accusations and exaggeration.
In my dorm someone had an Obama sticker on their door, and apparently someone ripped it off. The person who lives in the room and who put the sticker on the door left a note telling the person who ripped the sticker off to “F Off” and states “I’m sorry you hate black people.” Now I don’t know the entire story behind why the sticker was ripped off the door, but it’s bullshit like that that makes it hard for me to take some people seriously.
If you vote for Obama you’re part of history, if you don’t, you’re a racist.
Great options I have, it’s going to be fun election season on campus in the fall.
Why, oh why, do you ALWAYS BURY the news? We know the election results, what we don’t know is this:
===
If one adds up the total delegates to be awarded by primaries and uses a winner-take-all system, eliminating caucuses, Hillary leads by about 500 delegates. If you add in all the caucus states (almost all of which Obama won), she still leads, although by “only” about 150 delegates.
===
Now that’s interesting.
A very good post, Neo, thank you. You’ve articulated thoughts that have been chasing me for a day or two now. I find the racism business extremely difficult to get a handle on, mostly because I don’t have any firm idea as to what race is. The thing that sticks out for me is centered on the idea of change. Change was Sen. Obama’s constant refrain not so long ago. But as you point out, what has changed? What has changed (since the Ohio primary) is that the larger public has learned a great deal about Sen. Obama that they did not know theretofore. They evidently don’t like what they’ve learned and hence won’t vote for him in the numbers they did before. But this salient change has thoroughly befuddled the Democratic Party. What to do? Ignore it, as you suggest they will (in which case no need to change anything)? Or recognize the change, embrace it and say so right out loud (in which case, come to grips with the apparent likelihood that the prospective, nay, declared!, nominee cannot possibly win the Nov. contest should these demographic numbers persist. This is turn could point to…change!….change for another nominee. Indeed, the great proponent of change, Sen Barack Obama himself can see the change in his prospects and (shudder) remove himself from the quest to be President. But I’ll not hold my breath for that one.
Anyhow, thanks again.
SDF
I think Hillary will be proven right in November. The love affair the press and public has with Obama will continually dwindle as Obama gets Swift-boated from persons from his past who have a better perspective on his lack of intellect and mental fortitude for the job of president. Just wait/
I think the Democratic party is bound to elect an african american as presidential nominee to settle the issue of race in this country once and for all. They think they will settle it. I am not sure they can. I mean by “settling the issue” the idea to prove that the country as a whole (or the culture if you will) is not racist. Of course the society will never be color-blind or racially transparent. There will always be afro-centric tendencies (Rev. Right) from time to time as well as insensitive Euro-centric (can’t use white-centric, can’t I?) remarques once an while that we are accustom to, if not for they entertainment value.
The goal of the democrates is a cultural full-proof experiment of what America SHOULD be like. A sort of affirmative action at the presidental level. I am saying sort of OK. A black as president! Whow!!! that will shut the mouths of all that did not beleive in this land of opportunity and plenty, at the same time it will put to rest all remaining “afro-centric” blacks complaint and usual diatribes. Unfortunatley, it is Hillary who will be paying for all the sins of the democrates if not to say the whole nation.
Of course we have not yet arrive at judgment day. The question is whether America will accept this bargain. As far as I am concerned, this election is bogus, specially if Hillary finds its her way out.
This post is decisive. Kudos.
To accuse someone of racism is almost always ungraceful and fantastical.
As we move through our tasks in life, it is perfectly appropriate to take strategic action which is based upon a suspicion that another person is racist. It would be silly to discount our own observation and instinct about that person.
However, we are only playing strategic odds. We are guessing. As we cannot see into the mind and heart of another, we will rarely, if ever, know the truth of the matter. How many times have any of us seen or heard an overt action or admission of racism? If we really think about it, for most of us, the answer is: not many.
Therefore, though it is smart for us to be strategic and to play odds, it is fantasy for us to believe we somehow do know the truth. To believe such is to not live in reality. We don’t know the actual truth, and we will never know. To accuse someone of racism is almost always ungraceful and fantastical.
But, all that said, I should add that Rev. Wright’s writings, teachings, and preachings are overtly racist. Black Liberation Theology is overtly racist. I can’t see into Rev. Wright’s heart – and I actually suspect he is a loving, yet flawed, man – but I can comment on the writings of his which I have personally perused. Those writings are misguided.
After hearing McCain’s passionate global warming speech, i can’t think of a single democrat, including Obama, that tops him in utter cluelessness and ignorance.
Theres only one way to stop Obama. That would be stopping McCain from being his opponent.
SteveH
You have to be kidding. Obama is totally ignorant of foreign affairs and military matters. He has shown no indication of even wanting to understand radical Islam. His foreign policy advisors are disasterous.
Two of McCain’s global warming positions are OK: the insistance that China and India be involved and the need for alternate sources of energy. Cap and trade will get a lot of scrutiny. Obama would be likely to cave on China and India to prove that we aren’t imperialists on nuclear energy because of the tree huggers. You may not have noticed , but the Europeans are having some second thoughts about drastic environmental measures or are not fulfilling their own goals. As they back down, McCain will find less support for his economy-damaging measures here at home.
I forgot an and after imperialists. Sorry.
I think the US is ready for a black president and I wouldn’t mind voting for a reasonable black candidate myself. But why oh why, Obama?
Obama is the least prepared major presidential candidate since William Jennings Bryan. He has been deeply involved with a black power church and a radical wacko minister for twentyyears. And as the cyanide cherry on top of that sundae, he has a long working relationship with Weather Underground bombers.
How can this possibly be? Who is writing this unbelievable political novel?
Huxley asks: Who is writing this unbelievable political novel?
If not young Obama himself, David Axelrod, maybe?
I think that conservatives have not come to terms with what an Obama presidency would actually be like, if they had they would not be bitching about McCain’s global warming strategy.
Reality check: there will be global warming legislation. It can be market oriented like McCain’s or it can be European like Obama’s. But it is coming.
Terrye always makes it seem that we must take what we get and like it. Well, here’s a reality check for you: There’s only two reasons why actual conservatives will vote for McCain and you already know what they are. If McCain makes this even more unpalatable than it already is, we’ll take 4 years of Obama and welcome in the tide of new-found conservative converts that are likely to be had.
No Terrye, we dont have to have legislation and regulation for a problem that doesnt exist. Lets stop playing into liberal shams. Honestly, I dont know what you people stand for.
Hilary should stay in the race and, according to today’s Rasmussen poll; 62% of Democrats agree.
More interestingly, in the same poll, 29% of responding Democrats think she should run as an Independent if she loses the party nomination!
How about this scenario: Hilary runs as an Independent to provide an option to disenfranchised Democrats and Ron Paul or Mitt Romney run as Independents to provide an option for disenfranchised Republicans.
I, like most conservative Republicans, would love to have a viable alternative to the green-neocon ding-bat McCain.
“I think that conservatives have not come to terms with what an Obama presidency would actually be like,”
Followed by another poster:
“If McCain makes this even more unpalatable than it already is, we’ll take 4 years of Obama and welcome in the tide of new-found conservative converts that are likely to be had.”
I always find it amusing when the people a post is directed at show *exactly* what they are being accused of (especially when they state it with a large amount of indignation).
I think as time come near to election day and we continue to see more Obama more will come to Terrye’s conclusion (there have been quite a few wake up to that already). Some never will – they so *clearly* see how this would usher in the Golden Age.
It’s pretty much the same mental process that many of the leftist use, it isn’t based on reason as much as it is on feelings. Therefore you can not reason them out of the idea.
Letting your opponent have the power and their train wreck causing your side to win will happen the year after a working communist govt is found. So far those two things have happened about the same number of time (zero) with the former being tried more often. But then this is reason and that can never counter feelings (and I will get railed at with a large bunch of anger and very very little reason).
If there are enough scandals–and if the right people can make enough of the Ayers–the charges of racism may recede. Unfortunately, this will cast its own racial issue shadow, which should (but won’t) fall on the Democratic Party machine.
“I think as time come near to election day and we continue to see more Obama more will come to Terrye’s conclusion (there have been quite a few wake up to that already). Some never will – they so *clearly* see how this would usher in the Golden Age. “
So far, coming thus far, I’m getting a better education of what a McCain presidency will look like, and it looks like a populist sell-out that could include Iraq, and Supreme Court justices.
Instead of more of we conservatives forced by political necessity to see things the way RHINO’s do, why dont we allow all of America to see what voting for expediency and accommodation costs you?
That might be a better plan.
NN, you’re absolutely correct. Nothing less will do. But that won’t be enough. If every police chief, mayor, governor, Supreme Court justice, congressman, senator, and professional sports manager were African American somebody, somewhere, would find a picture of a Confederate battle flag in a book somewhere and there would go the whole thing again.
Ignorance in global waming issues is universal: in this we all, me including, are ignorant. Problem is too complex and too poorly explored now, so that only guesses, not very educated, are possible. But this is of little importance, since nobody can do much in curbing carbon emissions, and even if one could, it will have a negligible effect. Meausures that did not include carbon taxes also hardly can damage economy – and McCain proposals do not include carbon taxes. All this climate hysteria is a storm in glass of water, largely disconnected from any reality. As for McCain proposals for going to nuclear energy, they make sense irrespectively of reducing carbon emmissions. This is a good policy, even if adopted for wrong reasons.
“”It’s pretty much the same mental process that many of the leftist use, it isn’t based on reason as much as it is on feelings. Therefore you can not reason them out of the idea.
Strcpy””
Sometimes it is wise and reasonable to win the coin toss and elect to go on defense. Especially when your offense has proven an inability to score, and the other team offers up its 3rd string rookies to be handling the ball.
the country is so deeply desirous of electing a Democrat to the Presidency in 2008. Any Democrat.
I contend that 2004 was that way as well. Over confident Dems nominated an empty-suit gas bag, figuring the Anyone But Bush folks would line up behind him. It didn’t work out that way, of course. I was Anybody But Bush, until Kerry “reported for duty.” Interestingly, I was only Anybody But Kerry until the ambulance-chaser joined the ticket.
Obama is so awful, he makes Edwards look good to me.
BTW, had the dems nominated Lieberman in 2004, I firmly believe he would have won. He would have gotten my Ohio swing vote.
John Russell
Yeah but not every police chief, mayor, governor, Supreme Court justice, congressman, senator, or professional sports manager is African American…so you have no point. Except raising the question why are there not more African Americans in these positions.
News for you folks. Racism and elements of racism do exist. When you have a guy in WV saying he would choose McCain over Obama because he wants a, ‘full blooded American” President you can’t explain that any other way but racist.
But this does not mean if Obama looses it will be because of racism. True, some will say that. Just as some are saying Hillary’s loss is because of sexism. I’m sure someone somewhere claims the hatred of Bush has something to do with his Christian faith and I know that many say criticisms of Israel are signs of anti-Semitism.
There is always someone somewhere trying to drag this stuff into the conversation when it is not warranted.
So technically Obama can now declare any vote against him as a hate crime?