Tiebreaker Indiana: Make Hillary 44

Update: Hillary is showing the way:

Sen. Hillary Clinton added a previously unscheduled campaign stop Wednesday in West Virginia, soldiering on after a split decision in Tuesday’s voting in Indiana and North Carolina, her aides said.

The senator plans to appear at 11:45 a.m. at Shepherd University in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, Clinton aides told reporters about 3 a.m. Wednesday.

Her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, had already been scheduled to speak at the university.


While internet Hopium dens filled with incense and chanting, hoping slumlord Antoin “Tony” Rezko does not “flip” on long time friend Barack “Waffles” Obama – Hillary Clinton was busy winning “tiebreaker” Indiana.

Hillary’s victory was accomplished in the face of a fierce fight put forth by Obama’s strongest supporter – Big Media.

There were two unexpected moments in the course of a very long evening. The first was the outing of Donna Brazile, as a badly disguised Obama supporter, by Campbell Brown at CNN. The outing occurred as Democrats witnessed the full threat posed by the McGovern Dukakis egghead Obama wing of what was the Democratic Party.

Campbell Brown vs. Donna Brazile:

BROWN: Hold on. I want to ask Donna something. Hold on.

I want to ask Donna something because you have been on these panels time and time again with us as an undecided voter, and you sound very much –

BRAZILE: I’m not undecided.

BROWN: Uncommitted?

BRAZILE: I’m undeclared.

BROWN: Undeclared. There you go. Well it sounds very much – Hey, no –

BRAZILE: Words matter.

BROWN: Words matter. It sounds very much to me tonight like you have made up your mind.

Outing Donna as an Obama supporter is not really news. What is news is that Donna was called on her fake neutrality while paymaster CNN was broadcasting. Maybe CNN will now remove Donna from commenting on CNN in the same manner they removed Paul Begala and James Carville.

The really big news of the night however was Donna expressing the Obama vision of the Democratic Party they wish to create after Paul Begala made this unremarkable statement:

BEGALA: But I think Hillary is still going to make the case that she can win those blue-collar white voters that Barack still can’t, that may very well along with Latinos be the key to this general election. That’s what’s so interesting about this primary, why I think it’s good for my party, because the voters who are in play in this primary are the exact voters who are going to decide the general election as well, working-class white folks and Latin Americans.

Donna reared at Begala’s statement and provided the full Obama vision of their Democratic Party:

BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you’re looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[David Axelrod of the Obama circus has also said The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes. Eriposte does a good job dismantling Axelrod’s argument and correcting the historical record.]

Perhaps Donna missed the 2004 election. Perhaps Donna missed the lessons of the 2004 election. Perhaps Donna is not reading the 2008 election returns. Vague promises to “expand the party, expand the base” ring hollow from Donna the Obama supporter. John Judis explains:

Indeed, if you look at Obama’s vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the ’70s and ’80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State’s Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.

Replace “Pennsylvania” with Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina and the results remain the same.

Obama lost whites in North Carolina (61% to 37%) and Indiana (60% to 40%). Obama’s vote in both states among African-Americans was 91% in North Carolina and 92% in Indiana.

Donna Brazile might want to wish away the importance of the white vote due to her lackluster campaign history. Perhaps Donna blames her failures on whites not voting for her candidates and is taken in by the audacity of hope. Pershaps Donna does not realize that Obama is not expanding his base but rather shrinking it. Whereas Obama won white male votes in California (55% to 35%) Obama mainly lost them in subsequent primaries (North Carolina 36%).

Donna also does not understand the fastest growing demographic – Latinos – and Obama’s inability to garner Latino votes (especially against a latino friendly McCain). Obama will not be accepted simply because Donna is so beguiling on CNN. Obama will be rejected.

Donna also seems oblivious to the divisions Obama has injected into the Democratic Party:

Forget the horse race numbers for a moment: if the surveys are accurate, the polarization within the Democratic Party has reached critical levels. Nearly six in ten Obama supporters in Indiana say they would be dissatisfied if Clinton were the nominee — that’s (I believe) the high percentage of Obama supporters who have ever said that.

In both IN and NC, two thirds of Clinton supporters say they’d be dissatisfied if Obama were the nominee — I believe that’s the highest number recorded for that question, too.

The percentage of Clinton voters who say they’d choose McCain over Obama in a general election is approaching 40% in Indiana. Put it another way: in North Carolina, less than HALF of folks who voted today for Hillary Clinton are ready to say today that they’d definitely vote for Obama in a general election.

We’ve had enough of fake “uniters not dividers”. We’ve had enough of “reformers” without results.

The nation cannot afford another indigestible waffle.