Howard Dean and other Obama steal-the-election activists are in crisis mode.
Obama was so bloodied in the Wednesday Philadelphia debate that once again the calls are out to end the election -Now.
“End the election” before Hillary wins again.
Here is the Dean/Obama/Brazile/Pelosi worry:
Hillary has a whole lot of potential victories coming her way in the next 10 primaries. Obama, not only has losses to face, but increasing devastating scrutiny as demonstrated during Wednesday’s debate (not to mention the continuing revelations in the Rezko trial). Further, Republicans now smell Stinky’s blood in the water.
Republicans are already trashing Democrats running for office using Obama’s smears against working class whites. For instance, immediately after Obama’s condescending slap at small town America Politico published a list of
12 reasons “bitter” is bad for Obama. (We wrote about the 12 reasons and added one, HERE.
Here is reason #12:
It undermines Democratic congressional candidates who had thought that Obama would make a stronger top for the ticket than Clinton. Already, Republican House candidates are challenging their Democratic opponents to renounce or embrace Obama’s remarks. Ken Spain, press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said: “There is a myth being perpetuated by Democrats and even some in the media that an Obama candidacy would somehow be better for their chances down ballot. But we don’t believe that is the case.”
The advertisment to the left is a real life example of what Republicans will do to ALL Democrats running for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Superdelegates take note.
Obama at the top of the ticket will force all Democrats to denounce Obama for Rezko, Wright, Bitterness. It will be wholesale slaughter at the ballot box in November in a year when Democrats expected to win.
A Republican candidate running to succeed retiring Rep. John Peterson in a central Pennsylvania House seat is using Barack Obama’s ‘bitter’ comments in a mail piece. [snip]
The piece underscores the extent of which Republicans, up and down the ticket, will seize on the comments should Obama get the nomination.
Cloaked Obama supporters like Howard Dean want to hurt Hillary as much as possible before she wins in Pennsylvania. Dean wants to change the conversation from Obama’s many ugly relationships and views which render him unelectable. Dean also wants to force Superdelegates to help him try to force Hillary from the race – NOW.
An increasingly firm Howard Dean told CNN again Thursday that he needs superdelegates to say who they’re for – and “I need them to say who they’re for starting now.”
“We cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time,” the Democratic National Committee Chairman told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We’ve got to know who our nominee is.”
Howard Dean must be made to realize there will no NO HEALING – EVER – if Hillary is forced out of the race no matter how subtle the pressure. Howard Dean must be made to realize there will be NO HEALING – EVER – if Michigan and Florida voters are not respected by having their votes count the way they voted – NO BACKROOM DEALS.
Dean/Obama/Brazile/Pelosi want to use the resources of the Democratic Party to protect an inherently flawed candidate that cannot win in November.
Today, Paul Krugman once again informs in a sly way, why Obama is unelectable:
Will Barack Obama’s now famous “bitter” quote turn out to have been a big deal politically? Frankly, I have no idea.
But here’s a different question: was Mr. Obama right?
Mr. Obama’s comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.
Obama wrong on economics:
Start with the economics. Mr. Obama: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration.”
There are, indeed, towns where the mill closed during the 1980s and nothing has replaced it. But the suggestion that the American heartland suffered equally during the Clinton and Bush years is deeply misleading.
In fact, the Clinton years were very good for working Americans in the Midwest, where real median household income soared before crashing after 2000. (You can see the numbers at my blog, krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.)
We can argue about how much credit Bill Clinton deserves for that boom. But if I were a Democratic Party elder, I’d urge Mr. Obama to stop blurring the distinction between Clinton-era prosperity and Bush-era economic distress.
Obama wrong on the sociology:
Next, the sociology: “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”
The crucial word here isn’t “bitter,” it’s “cling.” Does economic hardship drive people to seek solace in firearms, God and xenophobia?
It’s true that people in poor states are more likely to attend church regularly than residents of rich states. This might seem to indicate that faith is indeed a response to economic adversity.
But this result largely reflects the fact that southern states are both church-going and poor; some poor states outside the South, like Maine and Montana, are actually less religious than Connecticut. Furthermore, within poor states, people with low incomes are actually less likely to attend church than those with high incomes. (The correlation runs the opposite way in rich states.)
Over all, none of this suggests that people turn to God out of economic frustration.
Bitter Obama does not understand America:
Finally, Mr. Obama, in later clarifying remarks, declared that the people he’s talking about “don’t vote on economic issues,” and are motivated instead by things like guns and gay marriage.
That’s a political theory made famous by Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” According to this theory, “values” issues lead working-class Americans to act against their own interests by voting Republican. Mr. Obama seemed to suggest that’s also why they support Hillary Clinton.
I was impressed by Mr. Frank’s book when it came out. But my Princeton colleague Larry Bartels, who had an Op-Ed in The Times on Thursday, convinced me that Mr. Frank was mostly wrong. [snip]
Indeed, the book concludes with a blistering attack on Democrats who cater to “affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues” while “dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans.” Doesn’t this sound a bit like the Obama campaign?
Anyway, the important point is that working-class Americans do vote on economic issues — and can be swayed by a politician who offers real answers to their problems.
And one more thing: let’s hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he’ll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.
Superdelegates are beginning to realize that Hillary shows electoral strength in places where Democrats have to either win (the big states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are must win) or do well in, if not outright win (West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas).
In the latest polls from the most reliable polling company this election cycle, Obama shows weakness in the general election even in states like Massachusetts. Obama according to these polls also loses Missouri and Ohio.
Superdelegates should note that even Republican Obama incense burners like David Brooks have decided to turn against Obama. Brooks not only is disillusioned by Obama being revealed as a typical lying politician but Brooks also notes Obama is in all likelihood doomed in November by the electoral “Math”.
He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment. [snip]
It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.
General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I’ve asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that’s going to be hard.
Superdelegates, take note of the above from Brooks.
Pat Buchanan foreshadows in detail, the effective Republican attack on Obama and what Democrats running in November would be forced to distance themselves from:
It was said behind closed doors to the chablis-and-brie set of San Francisco, in response to a question as to why he was not doing better in that benighted and barbarous land they call Pennsylvania.
Like Dr. Schweitzer, home from Africa to address the Royal Society on the customs of the upper Zambezi, Barack described Pennsylvanians in their native habitats of Atloona, Alquippa, Johnstown and McKeesport.
“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and … the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them.
“And it’s not surprising then 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.”
This is the pitch-perfect Hollywood-Harvard stereotype of the white working class, the caricature of the urban ethnic — as seen from the San Francisco point of view.
Buchanan underlines the deep Republican understanding of the politics of resentment and retaliation:
As Linus clung to his security blanket, Barack is saying, out-state Pennsylvanians, bitter at the world that has passed them by, cling to their Bibles and guns and naturally revert to ancestral bigotries against “people who aren’t like them” — blacks, gays and immigrants.
Though he sees himself as a progressive who has risen above prejudice, Barack was reflecting and pandering to the prejudice of the class to which he himself belongs, and which he was then addressing.
A few months back, Michelle Obama revealed her mindset about America with the remark that, “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.” Barack has now revealed how he, too, sees the country. The Great Unifier divides the nation into us and them.
The “us” are the privileged cosmopolitan elite of San Francisco and his Ivy League upbringing. The “them” are the folks in the small towns and rural areas of that other America. Toward these folks, Obama’s attitude is not one of hostility, but of paternalism. Because time has passed them by, Barack believes, they cannot, in their frustration and bitterness, be held fully accountable for their atavistic beliefs and behavior.
Though neither mocking nor malicious, Barack’s remarks are, nonetheless, steeped in condescension. Inherent in his words is that these folks in Middle Pennsylvania are in need of empathy, education, assistance and perhaps therapy.
Ouch, Buchanan ties Obama’s race speech to his San Francisco smear:
His remarks are of a piece with his address on civil rights that liberals have compared favorably to Lincoln’s Second Inaugural.
Note, from that Philadelphia address, the highlighted words.
“Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race … as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything. … They … feel their dreams slipping away … opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.
“Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.”
In Barack’s mind, black anger and resentment at “racial injustice and inequality” are “legitimate.” But the anger and resentment of white folks, about affirmative action, crime and forced busing are born of misperceptions — and of “bogus claims of racism” manipulated and exploited by conservative columnists and commentators to keep the racial pot boiling and retain power, so the right can continue to do the bidding of the corporations that are the real enemy.
Barack has stumbled into the eternal failing of the left-wing populist. He cannot concede that the anger of white America — that its right to equal justice has been sacrificed to salve the consciences of guilt-besotted liberals — is a legitimate anger. The truth that Barack dare not speak is that reverse discrimination is pandemic and that the folks in Middle Pennsylvania have a valid grievance that ought to be addressed.
So, Barack sought in Philadelphia to redirect their anger.
“(T)hese white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.” [snip]
Obama’s remarks about small-town America told us little about small-town America, but a lot about Barack. He is yet another cookie-cutter liberal who has absorbed and internalized the prejudices of that blinkered breed. He is an African-American John Lindsay, the great liberal hope of the Nixon-Agnew era, of whom Frank Manckiewicz once said: He was the only populist he knew who played squash every day at the Yale Club.
The Democratic future looks grim. Dean/Obama/Brazile/Pelosi have dragged us all from a bright future to a grimy one. They disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters and the voters of Michigan and Florida will vote their “bitterness” in November.
Dean/Obama/Brazile/Pelosi – Party Poopers.
Get the scooper.