Going with the Flow
The flow continues to run in the favor of Barack Obama. Momentum is on his side. Hillary Clinton has had to shake up her campaign staff and is struggling to find a more appealing message. I don't think she is going to be able to do it.
Obama has taken the delegate lead and more super delegates are starting to announce for him. His campaign is flush with money from many small contributors, while Clinton had to personally loan money to her campaign to keep it going. John McCain is so concerned about the Obama fund raising momentum that he is already trying to maneuver Obama into agreeing to limit the general election contest to just public financing.
The exact role of the Democratic super delegates has come into question. I understood they were a somewhat undemocratic hedge against the masses choosing an unelectable candidate (like McGovern in 1972) or an un-re-electable President (like Carter in 1976). Since both Democratic candidates by consensus are considered excellent, the pressure is on the super delegates to go with the flow and accept the candidate who prevails through the caucuses and primaries. If the super delegates keep the nomination away from the voter favorite, the Democratic Party will pay a high price, and I think they are too sensible to make that mistake.
The Right is labeling Obama as the "most liberal Senator", a phrase which combined with his surname gets 38,100 Google hits. The label apparently originates with a survey by The National Journal, based on 99 votes in 2007 that the Journal selected, rated and weighed. Their criteria were somewhat complex, but the bottom line with any such subjective rating is to consider the source. That the conservative Journal would consider Obama quite liberal was a foregone conclusion.
Some Clinton inclined Democrats have implied Obama has ducked votes on some key issues. The 99 votes selected by the Journal were important to conservatives, and therefore should have been of concern to Democrats. Looking at how often either Clinton or Obama failed to vote on any of the 99 votes when the other one did vote, the result is quite interesting. Obama failed to vote one time when Clinton did vote. Clinton skipped 17 votes when Obama did vote. On the 99 votes important to conservatives, Obama won the "courage to stand up and be counted" prize by a vote of 17 to 1.
posted by Tom Blake | 2:01 PM
2 Comments:
Obama has added two more States and the beauty contest here in Washington State to his streak. He won Hawaii, the State of his adolescense, with 76%. He won Wisconsin 58% to 41. He edged Hillary here 50 to 47.
Comparing the results from Wisconsin and Washington, which are about the same population, is interesting. Wisconsin was a totally open primary which both parties used to select all their delegates. Washington only counted to select half the Republican delegates. The total turnout in Wisconsin was about 1.5 million, while in Washington it was only 900k. Wisconsin voters went 1.1 million for the Dems and 400k for the Republicans, indicating many crossed over to vote in the hot Dem contest, and many more Dem voters were also motivated to participate. The Democrat outcome in Wisconsin mirrored the caucus result in Washington. Even with the Washington beauty contest not counting at all for the Dems, and counting for half the Republican delegates, Dem voting was 519k compared to only 382 for the Republicans.
McCain finished a distant third in total votes in all three states and the strong showings for Huckabee indicate Republican discontent with McCain.
People are energized by the thought of the Dems regaining the White House, and especially with Obama being the agent.
Are the people really energized by the thought of the Dems regaining the White House, or are they energized by the Obama rhetoric? I think the latter. The trend away from the Republican dominance is to the independents, not to the Democrats. The general election is seven months off, long enough for Obama's message to become trite and dull.
Essentially Obama is running on a cult of personality. This has been dangerous in Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union. In the US, we have had presidents running on personality, but fortunately to little harm, and some did well. In the 20th century, consider the Roosevelts, both great presidents. Dwight Eisenhouer was a good president. John Kennedy was harmless. Ronald Reagan overall was bad for the country, but did no irreparable harm.
Obama, if elected, will probably fall into the JFK mode. But we don't know. Still I am very reluctant to vote for a politician who has only empty rhetoric to offer to voters. I resent being treated as a gullible moron.
Obama, what do you really mean by all this pap you are spreading? What change, if any, will you work towards? Are they your own ideas, or are they Clinton's agenda?
I am still hoping that the many months before the convention will show that Obama has no clothes and Clinton will emerge as the winner.
John from Phoenix
Post a Comment
<< Home