You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Dem Nightmare Continues (Broder)
2008-04-26
For battle-weary Democrats, the big news out of Pennsylvania is pretty simple: Their nightmare continues.

In the seven weeks between the Texas and Ohio primaries in early March and Tuesday's balloting in Pennsylvania, the tone of both Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's campaigns became markedly more negative, and both candidates displayed new vulnerabilities that John McCain can easily exploit. The task of deciding which of those two exciting, precedent-breaking but seriously flawed contenders would give the Democrats the best chance of reclaiming the White House looks ever harder.

Despite a relatively narrow loss Tuesday in the delegate fight in the largest prize since Ohio and Texas, Obama is likely to be leading in both popular votes and convention delegates when the last primary results are counted June 3. But it is almost certain that he will be short of the number needed for nomination, leaving the final choice to the almost 800 superdelegates -- elected officials and party leaders.

And that is where trouble looms. Until now, Democrats have been congratulating themselves on a contest that has attracted millions of new voters. Many had become disillusioned with politics. Many were independents or converted Republicans. It seemed to bode well for November. But now all the worried Democrats can see are more and more first-time voters who will be frustrated and angry if their candidate is counted out in a process they neither sanctioned nor really understand.

For Clinton to win, the superdelegates would have to overrule the millions of voters who have flocked to Obama, including thousands of young people and African Americans, to whom he represents a fresh hope for the future. But as political pros, many of whom will be on the November ballot themselves, the superdelegates cannot ignore what Clinton achieved in winning such major electoral prizes as California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas and now Pennsylvania.

Obama's inability to win any of the major states except his home base, Illinois, and Georgia, where he could count on the black vote in Atlanta, is worrisome enough. His failure to mobilize and deliver the votes of blue-collar, middle- and lower-income white families that are the backbone of the traditional Democratic Party has to be even more concerning to the superdelegates, as are the gaffes that have begun to mar Obama's personal performance.

In weeks of struggle that he could have devoted to his uphill fight in Pennsylvania, Obama was unable to put to rest the controversies over his relationship with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and his own misguided effort to offer an explanation of what he called "bitter" rural Pennsylvanians finding solace in religion, rifles and immigrant-bashing. How many votes that cost him on Tuesday is uncertain, but it clearly raised doubts about his penchant for distracting issues.
And inexperience with the big time.
Yet, in pointing to those vulnerabilities in her rival, Clinton has heightened the most obvious liability she would carry into a fight against McCain. In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest.
Then there's the war thing.
Clinton had seeded doubts about her own character long before this campaign began through her record as a polarizing figure, her secrecy and her obvious prevarications. But in the seven weeks between Ohio and Pennsylvania, a Post poll found shockingly high percentages of voters who regard Clinton as dishonest and untrustworthy. The negative attacks she has launched against Obama have hurt him but equally have added to her reputation for opportunism.

That is why so many Democrats are praying for this divisive primary campaign to end. They sense, correctly, that the longer it goes on, the better it is for John McCain.

But how does anyone persuade the first serious African American candidate, the leader in every relevant measure of popular support, to abandon a historic candidacy?

And how does anyone persuade the first serious female candidate, the possessor of the best brand name in Democratic politics, and a politician who has battled back from seeming defeat at least three times already, that she should quit?

The Democrats have to resolve this somehow. The longer this goes on, the greater the costs in November.
I'm John McCain and I approve of this message.
Posted by:Bobby

#14  Bobby, certainly there aren't enough LIttle People to make the difference.

Democrats, the party of the Umpa Luumpa.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-04-26 22:28  

#13  wxj: In my opinion, McCain is a lunatic. His deck is missing a whole suit.

Which lunatic would you like to nominate Federal dictators-for-life judges? That's the question that's paramount in my mind. I think McCain is insufficiently conservative, but the Democratic alternatives are raving communists compared to him. Votes are seldom about ideal vs non-ideal alternatives. A lot of the time, they are about choosing the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2008-04-26 22:03  

#12  Again Robert Heinlein comes to mind in the personna of Lazarus Long. Vote: There may not be a candidate you wish to vote for but there is certainly a candidate you wish to vote against.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2008-04-26 21:24  

#11  McCain is an asshole. But the other two are more dangerous assholes.

I will once again be compelled to vote AGAINST a presidential candidate than for one if I do vote.

I havent voted FOR a candidate since Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-04-26 21:14  

#10  they aren't shocked - they are just willing to admit it now.
Posted by: Sninert Black9312   2008-04-26 19:58  

#9  "a Post poll found shockingly high percentages of voters who regard Clinton as dishonest and untrustworthy"

If they're shocked about that, they ain't been paying attention for the past decade.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-04-26 18:15  

#8  Please pass the wine.
Posted by: newc   2008-04-26 17:30  

#7  Old Chinese Curse.
"Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it".

Slamming McCain as a lunatic is well and good, but do you want either of the MORE lunatic opponents?

I see McCain as the lesser of three evils, worth voting in as Pres, BECAUSE the other opponents are abysmal, He's only "The best of a bad lot" no other reason.

We really need "None of the above" as a ballot choice.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-04-26 14:23  

#6  Big Jim is right. The dems can't make hay out of this. The GOP, on the other hand can get full unification as soon as the blind candidate does what he has to do. From what I know about McCain, that will be never. That man is as stubborn as radioactive waste. He will not bend to connect with his own party. He will bend to befriend the liberals. In my opinion, McCain is a lunatic. His deck is missing a whole suit. And as history unfolds, we will make such a lunatic our leader.
Posted by: wxjames   2008-04-26 13:32  

#5  It is amazing to me that no one is discussing the elephant in the room, proportional representation.

More like no one wants to discuss the elephant in the room. The problem caused by proportional representation was mentioned briefly about the time that the super-delegates became a factor, and then quickly dropped.

Posted by: Pappy   2008-04-26 12:50  

#4  No no no, BigJim - surely the Dems are not that prejudiced? They're the party of The Little People™
Posted by: Bobby   2008-04-26 10:47  

#3  The donks can't win. Blacks wont vote for Hildabeast, cause they'll be spurned. Latinos wont vote for Obama, cause, well, he's black and they dislike blacks intensely. I don't think anyone has faced the facts that they have built an un-winnable horse race here.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-04-26 10:43  

#2  It is amazing to me that no one is discussing the elephant in the room, proportional representation. If the donks had the traditional American system of first past the post, winner take all, there would be no problem. But the proportional selection of delegates assures that when there is an even match-up or a large multiplicity of choices, no decision gets made. I hope they keep this system. It's sort of like the Norks demonstrating the advantages of Stalinism.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-04-26 09:50  

#1  Lesseee.... two lawyers... one a product of the Chicago political machine... the other a product/beneficiary of Arkansas politics... neither of them have any personal accomplishments outside of the political careers... two 'imperials'... both with baggage out the wazoo... one appeals to the hard left and the intelligentsia... the other to the political die/hard Democrat establishment... neither can genuinely connect with the Democrats' most significant voter demographic...

Nope, don't see a problem here.
Posted by: Pappy   2008-04-26 09:40  

00:00