On Demand
Political Wrap-Up
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
WNYC's political director Andrea Bernstein discusses yesterday's Pennsylvania primary with Michael Hagen Associate Professor of Political Science at Temple University, and Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
Will this show finally do what NY Times just did and finally say it's time for Clinton to bow out of the race (they said it indirectly). I know Brian's has favored Clinton but she has no chance of winning: Obama leads the popular vote, the number of states won, the delegates captured so far in primaries and caucuses and he is gaining on the super delegates. What is Obama was in Clinton's position, there would have been calls for him to bow out of the race months ago.
Ketan, I was shocked by the NYTimes editorial. They all but asked Hillary to quit. Odd, given that they've endorsed her for months. The Times editorial quotes Hillary Clinton's "reassurance" that we could "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. Meanwhile, Obama's response to a question about Jimmy Carter's Hamas odyssey was: "Why can't I just eat my waffle?" Between these two, I'm thinking to write-in Hyman Roth. Even though he was a fictional character, it's plausible that he was a faithful Democrat.
Shame on you, Pennsylvania!!!
If only the other 49 states could get together and vote to kick you out of the Union today, then I’d be able to call us even.
Your state motto should be changed to “A Confederacy of Dunces”.
Your reprehensible vote is a stinging rebuke to logic, reason, rationality, and sanity.
Your stupid decision may have just handed over the presidency to a senile warmonger named John McCain.
The deaf, dumb, and blind crowd led by their Grand Marshal and Flag Lapel Pin fetishist Nash McCabe fell hook, line, and sinker for Hillary’s baloney.
The ignorance of Pennsylvania voters is staggering and breathtaking.
A Hillary presidency would not bring economic relief to the middle class and the working class, it would give us 8 years of mendacity, triangulation, obfuscation, corruption, and freak show psychodrama.
Hillary is the Queen of Toxic Sludge politics.
She is Dick Cheney in an ugly pantsuit.
She has used Karl Rove/Lee Atwater style tactics to run a vile, venomous campaign based on race-baiting, fear-mongering, lies, and distortions.
Obama has his flaws, but he is light years ahead of Hillary in terms of character, integrity, and gravitas.
Clinton won Pennsylvania fair and square! This race is not over!
As a woman, I am ashamed of Sen. Clinton, and disappointed that many seem to vote for her because they want a woman President—now—no matter what kind of person she is. I do not want our first woman President to be a woman who is the embodiment of "the ends justify the means." Her negatives are climbing as more Americans see more of her character under pressure. She is belligerent, condescending and vindictive, and has shown a character trait of using exaggeration and downright lying in stressful situations. We have had 8 long years of this type of administration—war, recession, declining global respect, and sending the world reeling through poor fiscal policies—and I would not feel comfortable voting for more of it. Women have come a long way, baby, and I'll be damned if I'll cast a vote for the type of woman who has to resort to lying, cheating and stealing to prove viability. We have better women, strong women who can do the job without enforcing the stereotype many hold of what kind of woman it takes to wield power.
If she is the party nominee, I won't vote for McCain, but I won't vote for Sen. Clinton either. I will either decline to vote for President, or (more likely) ask for a ballot on which I can write in Sen. Obama's name as my choice.
As a native Pennsylvanian, I have every license to say, this vote doesn't mean anything about the state of mind of America. PA still has 12M people just like it did 40 yrs ago when I was in school. During a time of unprecedented business growth and social change in this country, PA remains a retrograde sort of place where few people want to live. They've lost their ability to compete in global business, and many many people there work in their growth 'businesses' healthcare or higher ed, or 'defense' contracts which are paid for by endowments or tax money! I won't agree with the poster about voting them out of the union, that dubious distinction goes to Texas in my book, but certainly PA needs to get a dose of what it takes to make it in this modern world, a big part of which is social change and inclusion.
Hillary reminds me of another iron lady, Margret Thatcher, a person like that would be completely wrong for us, she was a disaster for Britain.
If only we could get rid of this antiquated and byzantine system of delegates. And SUPER delegates? What the hell is that, who came up with that nomenclature? Do they have capes and masks and a big "SD" on their chests? It's turned out election process into a comic book: I'm a SUPER delegate! Oh yeah, well I'm a DOUBLE-SECRET SUPER delegate! I'm an ULTRA delegate! I'm a PENULTIMATE delegate!
In fairness, I support Hillary but I am also in support of thoughtful voting. In Pa, Hillary was outspent in media dollars and yet she had a 10% edge. In Florida, both names were on the ballot, no media influence and yet she won. In Florida, it must be noted that the ballot also included a State Tax issue which resulted in a record turnout. Hillary won because the voters used their judgement and not hype. It was the purest election process in modern memory, democracy at its best. Both Pa and Fl speak volumes.
Hillary for all her talk when the chips are down she will use the very same tactics that were used against her during her husbands term. When Hillary uses fear tactics in Pennsylvania, resorting to a t.v add which had an image of Osama Bin laden. I wonder if this will be reflective in her term if she is elected?
Hillary seems to be determined to be the Ralph Nader of 2008.
Why don't the super delegates step in? Everyone keeps talking about how Clinton and Obama's BLOODFEST is dividing the Democratic Party, destroying our chances of winning the general election against McCain - but yet noone steps up and speaks out? Why? Isn't the destruction painfully obvious at this point? We have one of the greatest chances in history to turn our government around with Nancy Pelosi leading the way. Why isn't anyone stopping this destruction? Clinton needs to step out!
Oh Hillary. You're so cute. Run along now and let the adults run the country. Time to go home to your duck blind with a six pack and a bottle of Crown Royal.
Hillary's complaining about being outspent is total spin...doesn't it also speak volumes that Obama has been given so much money and primarily from individuals contributing $25-$100. I mean doesn't THAT speak volumes?! Isn't THAT unprecedented democracy?
Also, how can anyone still trust Hillary with all of her 'win at any cost' tactics? I mean she was talking about nuking iran actually! Seriously? This is diplomacy, politcs? Enthusiastically talking about obliterating people?! Civilizing democracy? Really? I cannot believe how far right the Hillary campaign has been willing to go. How cynical!
I'm done with Bushes and Clintons. If Hillary ha(ra)ng(ue)s on for this nomination, I'm voting for McCain. No questions. No regrets. And I don't think I'm alone.
The morning after the Pennsylvania Primary, I am wondering, "What's new?" Obama still leads in the popular vote, Obama still leads in pledged delegates, and Obama still leads in total delegates. The delegate math still says Clinton can't catch up in pledged delegates. So what exactly did Pennsylvania do? Its time to ease off the news hype and put these last primaries in context.
Here's a couple questions to ponder: Why can't Hillary put this thing away? Why, when she has 20 point leads coming into states like Ohio and PA, can't she blow him out and capture more delegates to move ahead? She was outspent by Obama, but why can't she raise more money than him so that she can turn around and outspend him and put it away? Why have more superdelegates moved to Obama in the past few months? Why, when she has a favorite ex-President as her spouse can she not capitalize on that and win more votes? So she won PA. I guess that's a big deal but frankly I ask why she couldn't win KS, GA, CT, CO, and the 20 or so other states? Why hasn't she, with all of her assets, PUT THIS AWAY?
FACT CHECK: HILLARY WON PA BY 9 -- not 10.
You just reported that Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania by 10 points.
This is incorrect.
The popular vote totals that both The New York Times and CNN are reporting yield the following percentages:
Clinton 54.7%
Obama 45.3%
This puts Clinton's margin at 9.4% -- or, for reporting purposes, 9%.
This is a case where rounding up has an outsized political effect.
It unfairly awards Hillary with the enormous "perception premium" of a "double-digit win" and unfairly denies Obama the ability to claim that he cleared the minimum bar his own campaign set, which simply was to hold Hillary to a less-than-10-point victory.
Brian, if you're going to quote stats on white voters who said race was a factor in their decision, might it not behoove you to try to provide a figure on African Americans who said the same (or speculate on the relative unavailability of that information)?
[[BL Producer Writes: This is a preemptive, gentle, reminder - please keep your comments civil, productive, and relevant to the discussion on the air. Thanks!]]
Obama spent the most time in Philly as did volunteers for him and he won!!!
Tim Russert made a great point last night: the reason why Obama can't "close the deal" is because white women will not abandon HRC. is that hsi fault? given the huge advantage that she had going in, and all the BS that came out in the last 6 weeks, as well as the backing of Rendell and Nutter, I think Obama did pretty well. No one ever expected Obama to win PA (BTW, it's the second OLDEST state in the union!). I guess we'll see what happens in Indiana but it is now more or less impossible for HRC to win more elected delegates. she needs a huge shift in super delegate momentum.
If anyone has any doubts that this race is doing damage to the democratic party and unity, the latest polls show that if Obama is chosen 25% of Hillary supporters "Voters" they will switch and vote for John McCain. How much of this will actually pan out in November we don't know, but it is a very bad sign.
Bad economic news=Bill Clinton deciding to deregulate business in 1992. Why would Hillary be any different?
Was the Rush Limbaugh factor a factor?
I am sick of the media covering this like a horse race. They and THIS station totally ignored other candidates like Kuccinich when they "weren't" winning.
She is over, she does not have the popular vote (even with Florida) and has not won the delegates.
She is not going to win. She is touting her increased cash flow, tell me how much Barack got last night? I sent him some!
Rachel Maddow put it best by saying "look what Obama has done in as little as 6 weeks. He closed in on her." What should be news is how Hillary lost so much footing in PA. She's been had y'all.
To add another msnbc viewpoint to the mix; Chuck Todd said weeks ago, (during the 11 STRAIGHT victories)...
the MATH does not work for Hillary, as the contests go on the percentage of delegates that she has to obtain grows higher! I think he said she has to get 80% in the next primaries!
DO THE MATH!
It really makes me sick to think these two egomaniacs can find a way to make this work. Dems were proud of both of these candidates and yet they are destroying any chance of victory in November. It’s shameful. It‘s a perfect storm for the left: bush’s incompetence, the failures of the economy, war and the general direction of our nation. and McCain’s weakness as a candidate. We act like this is some kind of video game, but the truth is lives are at risk. When we fail the same Republican faces will be in front of the cameras selling their lies but behind the scenes they dismantle our nation. When you wake up remember one thing you deserve what you get., 100% of it.
Hillary can really sway the media, Barack has been predicting this all along. He has been right all along and will win in the end. She's doomed.
Obama WILL raise Lazarus from the dead... AGAIN!! (so that he can send in 20 shekels to the campaign)
Obama WILL single-handedly fund job creation in 'bitter states' in advertising and media by spending millions upon millions of donors dollars on ads.
Obama WILL bring CHANGE WE ALL BELIVE IN (by taking away gun owners 2nd Amendment rights).
Obama WILL win the nomination even though he'll lose by votes and delegates.
Hillary is disgusting for even SUGGESTING we would slaughter 70 million people in Iran.
I am disgusted.
Not all Americans are buying into the obama revolution. Obama will not get the swing voters in November. The regulars joe in the swing states are not ready to make that leap
What about the Rush Limbal chaos change over campaign? Did it have an impact?
Brian,
I've been wondering why Clinton supporters believe that she can beat McCain, when she is having difficulty beating an upstart?
I love your show and congratulations on your most recent award.
last night were we moderates.
McCain or Hillary, I don't care.
Either one would represent the majority of Americans and our best interests better than B.H.O.
Brian,
pls address the following:
I must be missing something: I don't get how the candidate who won all the biggest
states (Calif, NY, Texas, Fla), plus other large states (Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
NJ) can be losing the delegate count.. (yes I know, Fla and Michigan don't count, but
they don't count for EITHER candidate..) I mean what big states has Obama won?? even
with the proportional system the Dems have I still don't get how Hillary can be losing in
the delegate count.. having won so many big states...
can you address this issue on your show, pls..
I began as a Hillary supporter, but her divisive, win-at-all-costs campaign has been an instructive as to how she's likely to govern. We've just had eight years of disastrously divisive, win-at-all-costs government,and look where we we are. Do we really need four or eight more? I'm sending money to the Obama campaign today.
Assuming the prognostications are true and Obama wins the nomination, and assuming that Clinton gets fully behind his candidacy, will she be able to deliver to Obama these rural and blue collar voters that have eluded him so far?
Barack's slime is just stealth slime - don't forget he's also a politician and pulling stunts all day long
With all this infighting we have to ask the question do the Democrats really want to win!
or
Maybe they deserve to loose once again!
Hillary is basically a republican. (This is not so different from her husband's presidency...welfare reform bill, NAFTA, etc.) How those so called Pennsylvania democrats can vote for this divisive, dishonest, fear mongering woman is answered easily........racisim. The Clinton campaign made it this far by getting support from low-income, low-education whites and older whites, all of whom aren't ready for a non-white President, of any color. Obama inspires more, is a better manager and leader, and he is not so different from Clinton on policies. Yes, Obama spent tons of money and closed the gap to 9 (not 10) but there will never be enough money to erase peoples' inbred and subconsciouss racism. That will take someone like Obama leading the country. When will the media start reporting the real story here?
Like many others on this page, I cringe at Sen Clinton's belligerent remarks on Israel/Iran. Nevertheless, female candidates as well as female executives (Thatcher, Meir, et al) must convince their publics that they will not shrink from a military fight.
being from PA, and personally anti-gun, I have to defend real hunters, not the 'dick cheney - let's get drunk and go canned hunting crap' type. The ones who actually do the tracking, etc. They know the land like farmers, and would like the animals to be healthy like a fisherman would like rivers, lakes and streams in the west to remain undrilled by corporate interests. They all appreciated nature basically, even though I myself would never do any hunting or fishing.
One more important reason, besides the drilling going on in sensitive environmental areas in the West, which most hunters and fisherman are against, that it's important to separate real hunters from 2nd amendment hyperbole, is something called 'wasting disease', the CJ equivalent for hooved animals, especially elk, and since this administration will never spend enough money on anything having to do with health and prevention, we really do have to depend on hunters to lend their skills to tracking this stuff. It really is a problem.
I just wish the real hunters would separate themselves in a reasonable way from all of the 2nd amendment hyperbole that's so divisive in unproductive.
I just wanna know if Obama should stop right now, because Hillary won PA. She knows that it will be hard for both of them, so why keep fighting this way ?
Maybe Democrats are really that stupid and need ANOTHER 8 years of the status quo. In 2016 they'll finally hit rock bottom, there will be no more excuses that it's "not his time" and Obama can sweep the nomination and the election.
And my children will be old enough to vote then, yay! That is, if they're not drafted by Hillary to fight a war in Iran....
Look at how much gain Barrack had made in PA in 6 weeks!!
She could not even hold PA. At what point do her "wins" equate a win against John McCain.
She is losing the popular vote. She may argue this is a primary for the the electoral college, but the reality is that they sign on for different rules and Hillary just doesn't want to follow them.
If this was switched she would have asked him to leave long ago.
I think the tough hawk-like stance Senator Clinton is assuming in the run up to PA could come back to haunt her, not only in her initial vote to authorize force in Iraq, but in her comments about being under sniper fire. If Senator Obama supporters were savvy and willing to go negative, her sniper fire could become Bush's WMDs and mushroom clouds. (Though the statement is more similar to Senator McCain saying the streets of Baghdad are safe, while being surrounded by a couple dozen soldiers and wearing a bullet proof vest.) The situations are not equivalent; however, they are similar in that they do not represent easily provable realities. They represents hawks crafting statements to win support; Republican and Democratic fear mongering.
A line between being strong on security and using scare tactics???
Suggesting that Iran could possibly bomb Israel which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US is fear mongering. Obliterate??? 70 million people live in Iran.
If Iran has nuclear weapons they could not physically hit us. What the hell is wrong with the media?
Ketan (#1)
Does Brian really support Clinton?
Anyone know?
'ppreciate it.
The Democratic primaries are so contested because the winner will be President. Poor McCain has no chance whatsoever, with only 19% of the country thinking we're on the right track. The Democratic contest can only be good. The winner will be a stronger President.
That woman who just talked about erosion of civil rights and stuff...and who will talk baout this stuff...Ron Paul talked about that stuff since the beginning...people we are a lost cause...
chad she did hold PA
Why do we care about Israel so much? What about Darfur and North Korea??
My God why does Israel play ANY rule in our election.
All morning I've been thinking that the Democratic strategy needs to shift away from personal negativity, toward a style more indicative of how Clinton and Obama would run in the general election. This would address the "who could win" issue, and lessen the damage to the democratic candidates while McCain is strengthening his base. I think Clinton's "scare" ad did exactly that.
Why the FLICK is it about bombing israel
The candidate that leaves the race in respect to the popular vote is the true patriot.
Brian asks, "What would Obama do if Iran bombed Israel..." Why not ask, "What would Obama do if aliens blocked the sun?"
In ref to caller debate.
True the history of deceptive politicians.
...maybe that's why some want a new political culture in Washington? (Yes read Obama)
Anyone who abstains from voting because their candidate isn't on the ballot, does not deserve citizenship. Period. Shame on you. This is an election for President, not the Prom King and Queen.
"chad she did hold PA"
Yes but she lost her 15 point lead and did not gain any! That is NOT GOOD. You are supposed to gain and hold ground not lose it.
Why should Clinton nicely bow out to make way for Obama when she's getting votes. She's not Ralph Nadar with 2% of the vote. Also she has to play the military/terror card -- it's a huge issue in the national election. Also, the exact same strategy followed by male politicians (past, present and future) would never get this negative reaction. Men are expected to be tough and play rough -- we're not used to seeing this from a woman. And yet who could possibly win just being nice. It ain't gonna happen.
I am a democrat with a considerable number of republican friends. Because the republican candidate was identified so early, those that are able have strategically voted for Obama with hopes of a beatable candidate. I would like to know what Hillary's lead would be if the republican votes were subtracted from Obama's number.
I have never heard of a republican voting for Hillary in the primary.
And to your point, sexism is far more rampant than racism.
The superdelagates overturning Barack's win because he isn't electable based on his skin color IS racist. Racist to the voters and him. It is his to lose whether he is black white or in between!~
The more this country claims to change the same things stay the same, RACE still matters.
How is it that you again bring up perceived racism among white voters and yet...
you will not cite the analogous data for Barack Hussein Obama?!
Racism, you bet,
but on the Obama side!!
What percentage of blacks vote for Obama?
#58...good question...sun blocking technology is awesome!
Chad, Obama IS in-between! He's only HALF black!
chaad
why gain? clinton supporters came to her early and a majority stayed. SHE the winner.
she wins swing states. she wins WHite americans
Hey, Seth
Don't you mean the other 47 states? Or didn't you get the memo from the Obama campaign that MI and FL don't get a vote?
Anonymous 60
agreed. i say grow up!
vote democratic, vote often
"she wins swing states. she wins WHite americans"
But she isn't winning delegates or the POPULAR VOTE.
Despite having an electoral college this primary is separate.
Ignoring any vote because the "white vote" is the majority is racist and discriminatory.
Chad,
And any of the rest of you who are trying to paint Obama's major loss as a win, I'd like to point out a few facts you are conveniently avoiding:
1) He's the front-runner. He massively outspent Clinton (something like 3-1). He had 7 weeks in which to make his case, and he still couldn't even come close. Why can't he close the deal?
2) A previous argument made by the Obama campaign was that Hillary had much better name recognition, but that as soon as people got to know Obama, they would vote for Obama, which is completely wrong. They got to know him, and even with his enormous money and media advantage, they still rejected him.
3) He lost. You may like to consider this a win for him, but a 10 point loss (or even a .10 loss against McCain will still mean President McCain, and all your complaining won't change that. He must actually win states where Dems have a chance in the GE in order to win the presidency. Sorry, but Utah, Wyoming and Alaska are not the states a Democrat will need to carry in November. OH, PA, FL and MI are. Oh, wait, I forgot, FL and MI don't matter.
CHad,
it's not his to lose. it's the democratic primary and the job of the superdelegates is to pick someone who can win.
just saying they country is racist is not racism. it's called look at the facts.
sorry if you don't like the facts but when we grow up we learn to vote for the winner not the feel good guy. this is not prom king we're picking
Iphie
well put!
their dream is our night mare!
Michael,
There is nothing new about Obama or the political culture that he represents. He talked at one point about bringing "Chicago-style" politics to the campaign. And he did. He is as manipulative and self-serving as a politician can be. He has run an incredibly negative campaign and he doesn't know how to answer difficult questions. And no matter the amount of money he dumped into this campaign (not just in PA, but he massively outspent Clinton in OH and TX too) people aren't buying what he's selling.
What i find funny is that democrats seemed shocked at how little the Clintons care about anyone. Just take a look at the 90's. This is what they do so wipe the stupid look off your faces.
When you cite the number of Clinton supporters who will not support Obama because he is black you fail to mention the number of Obama supporters who will not support Clinton because she is white (or famale)
Do you have these statistics?
thank you
John Reseska
77,
the 90's were good for me!
Hi eva: #2
I am coming over to your point of view. I am losing enthusiasm for both of these candidates. Her answer to the question about Iran bombing Israel was way over the top - very bellicose. On the other hand he is so mealy-mouthed when he is asked about bread and butter issues. The last 3/4 of the ABC debate were on these issues and he was all over the place.
Maybe we can draft Barbara Boxer.
Antonio,
I think you should take your own advice and do the math. Hillary Clinton just added almost 250,000 votes to her popular vote total. Add that to her votes in ALL of the previous states (including FL and MI) and she actually has a lead in the popular vote now.
14,973,720 votes for Obama to 15,095,663 votes for Clinton.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Look it up -- if the only way your candidate can win is by disenfranchising voters then his win isn't legitimate. Just like we said in 2000, you have to count all the votes.
Your allusion to Chuck Todd conveniently avoids the fact that he was speaking of the political landscape as it stood at the end of February. Things have changed since then -- the math has changed. And Obama has lost some really big, really important states.
With all her blather about Ready on Day One, Hillary better have a SPECTACULAR first day in office. I expect nothing less than Bin Laden's head on her desk by COB.
Or is that asking too much?
Kate, she won't do that because then she couldn't use OBL's image in her TV ads when re-campaigning in 2012.
I too was distrubed by the one sided reporting on race during this report. Was it not mentioned that 98% of black voters voted for Obama? Does this not suggest that race was nearly the largest factor when Blacks choose their candidate even if on "half" black? Or could anyone be so naive to believe otherwise. Yet a great deal was made to in some way accuse whites of being bias when in fact a large percent of whites did vote for Obama. So where is the bias really? Whites or Blacks? Why were the same race questions not asked of the black voters? Was it because the answer that a huge percentage of blacks would be forced to admit they are racist just be to difficult to swallow? That would certainly make national headlines wouldn't it.
Iphie:
1) Obama "won" Texas.
2) There is no money he can spend that will erase remaining racism and Hillary's use of and reliance on it to win.
3) How one can view these two candidates and conclude that Obama is the self-serving and manipulative one belies reality. She changes her tune 10 times a day with no consideration of what she said 5 minutes before. (ex. McCain comments). As long as it serves her position at the moment, that is enough for her. Her campaign focuses on she not we, I not us, this is all about her ego and entitlement. It is typical of a bully, who after provoking their target repeatedly, to claim that they are now the victim when the target finally fights back. He has taken the high road, the positive approach for the majority of his campaign. When he gives her a dig, it is based on facts (her dishonesty re: Nafta, Bosnia, her negative and distracting attacks, ie. misstating his Reagan comment, Wright, Ayers - just to name a few), not like her repeated negative and baseless attacks. Its amazing how easy it is to convince a large amount of Americans to see things your way by making repeated untrue and contradictory claims.
The recent races have been more about class than race. Different issues, different constituents. The elites.....and the rest of Americans.
RACISM????
Why does no one mention SEXISM!!!
The scary thing to me about Obama is that his base is kids and they should indeed participate but I don't want kids having the deciding vote in this economy and this world scene. Let tehm get soem experience before taking the majority! Neither he nor the kids have been seasoned enough.
I think it is absolute madness that people want Hillary abandon her supporters, which comprise HALF of the Dems, if not more give the wiggle room of the states with the fluid rules for primary voting.
tdh (#42) trying to paint Clinton as being a Republican and insulting her voters completely denies the reality of the situation: Clinton is much stronger among core Democrats than Obama. And given that she just won in a closed primary (Democrats only) perhaps it is your understanding of who Democratic voters are that is wrong -- explain to me again, who are the low-information voter? Do some reading on the subjects, she is much stronger amongst traditional Dems than he is.
You have also contradicted yourself -- you say that Clinton is actually a Republican, but then you say that she and Obama are not so different on policies. Is Obama a Republican too? Which is it?
Jim #84,
What you fail to see is that even though 98% of blacks are voting for Obama, those people are not saying that they would never vote for Clinton under any circumstances. Just a year ago, Bill Clinton was still referred to as the "first black president". But being that Obama is half-black, many black voters now have a PREFERENCE for him over Hillary.
What was raised on this show was that a large % of white voters, 16 or 8 - not sure, said they would not vote for Obama simply because he's black. THAT is racism.
Iphie,
"Disenfranchising voters" is the most tired, overused way of describing what happened in Florida and Michigan. All of the candidates knew the stakes in those states. Her own campaign even issued a press release about following the DNC rules regarding this exact situation! In case you've forgotten:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3134
If Clinton had won all of the Super Tuesday states (and therefore won the nomination), I'm assuming that in your view, such an event would have "disenfranchised" the voters of Pennsylvania? How about Guam?
Look, the MATH is simple. The popular vote doesn't matter. Moving the goalposts and doing anything to win (rules be damned!) is why I cannot support Senator Clinton. And I say this as a regular donor to her campaigns for senate and to her husband's campaigns for president, for whom I also was a hard-working volunteer, knocking on doors and talking to people in Florida in both the '92 and '96 campaigns.
You can talk about popular vote, about Florida, and about Michigan all you want. It just doesn't matter, unless the rules change retroactively.
Which won't happen.
tdh (#85) C'mon you gotta back up your assertions with fact. Clinton won the popular vote in TX -- are you one of those people who believe that the popular vote doesn't matter? You are quick to call Clinton supporters Republicans, but disregard of the popular vote is a Republican position, or don't you remember Florida in 2000?
And really, do you need to cry racism because your candidate isn't winning? If all of the people who vote for Clinton are racist, does that make all of the people who vote for Obama misogynists?
The rest of your post is filled with slurs and accusations about Clinton -- why don't you try to back-up your character assassination with actual facts that support your position? I do not accept your characterization of Clinton, and neither did the majority of voters yesterday.
The President PRESIDES over the country. I care about the candidate being a decent and articulate human being who can WORK WITH CONGRESS to unite the diverse population of this country and make it a country we are proud of. Obama is my candidate.
Chris (#90)
I believe that all the votes from all the states need to be counted. It is a position I have always had, it is the most democratic and Democratic position and also the only morally defensible position. I'm not sure what your argument about PA being disenfranchised is, but it doesn't have anything to do with the need to count all of the states.
The Democrats will not win the GE without FL and MI, simple as that. Choosing to punish the Democratic voters of those states because of the actions of the Republican leadership in those states is beyond foolish. Unless you would like Obama to be considered an illegitimate candidate, all of the votes need to be counted. And really, why are you and Obama afraid of the voters in these states?
Hi Chris:
You bring up a valid point which is that for the nomination the popular vote do not matter, only the delegate count. But I think the point that needs to be taken from Ipsie's post is that the argument from the Clinton campaign, should she win any more primaries which is anything but certain, is that with Florida and Michigan counts as they stand now (not saying that it was a fair vote) cut his popular vote lead from 700,000 down to just over 200,000 before PA. That is only if you count the MI "uncommitted" votes as Obama votes and it includes the imputed totals from the caucus states. Now she will probably claim that she has obliterated his lead. Again, I'm not saying it's fair, just pointing it out. Notice, that his camp is now saying he leads by "half a million" instead of 500,000. Interesting. It may not matter in the end because maybe by June no one will listen to this argument, but I think she will make it. However,if she loses big in IN and NC then she probably will have a hard time making that argument.
Iphie:
Clinton is behaving like a republican in her campaigning and spinning tactics. This is what is so appalling. For 8 years we have watched the Bush administration and republicans lie to our faces and then spin away, always winning in the media battle. This is excatly what Clinton is doing now. Clinton claims she is democratic on her policies NOW, to get elected, but I have no reason to believe or trust one word she says given how many times she has contradicted herself during this campaign and outright lied as well.
Re: dems - Hillary has successfully spun and convinced some people that Obama can't win big states with traditional democrats. The only way she is right about this is if those "traditional democrats" won't vote for a perfectly competent and suitable democratic candidate, Obama. If that's true it could only be for one reason, race. But really, does anyone think that New York, New Jersey, etc. aren't going democratic this year. Also, are women and reagen democrats the traditional democrats? I'm no expert but I seem to remember these people consitituing swing voters in recent years.
and why cann't Florida and Michigan have a real primary or Caucus?
The democratic primary has always been a delegate race. Leave it to Clinton to change the rules and winning threshold when she is losing. Just as she is doing with Michigan and Florida. I never called her supporters republican, not sure where you got that. The reason why I wouldn't call her supporters misogynists is because there are many other valid reasons to not support Clinton other than she is a woman (even though she uses that card every chance she gets) such as dishonesty, divisiveness, and past failures (healthcare!) etc. Not so many with Obama...other than this experience thing people seem to hang onto even though I seem to remember many good presidents with similar experience (Lincoln). I think all of the facts re: her dishonesty and divisiveness are well known to those who have followed this election and I'm sure you know what they are.
Clinton is running for the most powerful jog in the world not buttermilk queen at the county fair. tough it up tdh, if bama gets the nom rove will make road kill out of him.
Unelectability Is Just an Elusion for Racism
Senator Clinton is ducking the issue that probably won her the ten-percentage-point victory in the Pennsylvania primary election.
Senator Obama’s supporters, God bless them, have chosen to disregard the racism hurdle standing in the way of his path to victory over the Republican candidate for the Presidency. They are determined to use the 2008 election as a tool for bringing out the country’s higher principles. Unfortunately, we may not be ready and the stakes are too high to withstand another four or eight years of warfare and national financial ruin in exchange for fighting a losing general election campaign.
m,
I hear you. This is all pretty discouraging.
I am still trying to figure out how Hillary supporters can support her after the "totally obliterate" Iran comment. And I am still trying to figure out why anyone is surprised that he can't "close the deal" when they keep slinging mud at him AND he keeps refusing to fight back.With the Wright issue, I think he handled it masterfully and graciously and with insight. But now he needs to fight. That doesn't mean bringing the campaign to her level. It means: FIGHT. Tell the people what they need to hear. Do it fairly. But do it loudly. And do it with the force of his logic and communicative ability. If he can't do that, he needs more time. But if he needs more time, then we have no one to run this year. Save us, Mike Bloomberg.
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
1 | 2 | Next | Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.