Stumper

Obama's 'Sweetie' Dilemma

Andrew Romano — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:55:24 GMT

The toughest task remaining for Barack Obama in this twilight phase of the neverending Democratic primary battle isn't avoiding embarrassment in Kentucky (he won't), finding a consensus solution to the Florida/Michigan dispute (he might) or racking up enough delegates to finally clinch the nomination (he will, eventually). It's earning the trust of Democratic voters like Cynthia Ruccia, 55, and Jamie Dixey, 57, of Columbus, Ohio. The organizers of a new group called "Clinton Supporters Count, Too" that plans to work actively against Obama in swing states in the fall, Ruccia and Dixey represent a sizable number of Clintonites, many of them women, whose initial preference for the former First Lady has hardened into an unyielding opposition to her rival. The reason? What they perceive as the "intense sexism" of party leaders, the media and/or the Obama campaign itself. "It’s been open season on women," the pair told the Politico this morning. "And we feel we need to stand up and make a statement about that, because it’s wrong.”

Obama is well aware of the challenge--especially because he made it more daunting earlier this week. During a tour Wednesday of a Chrysler plant in Sterling Heights, Mich., local television reporter Peggy Agar asked the senator "how [he was] going to help the American autoworkers." Obama's response? "Hold on one second, sweetie." Unfortunately, Obama didn't follow through, and Agar closed her segment that night with the tart phrase "this sweetie never got an answer." Soon, the Politico, the Atlantic, the New York Times and other outlets posted items on the exchange; reporters noted that Obama had also called a female factory worker “sweetie” in Allentown, Penn. Thus, a pattern. Obama supporters chided the media for not covering "the issues"; Clinton supporters sensed paternalist condescension--and even sexism.

Who's right? Addressing someone as "sweetie" isn't necessarily sexist, as any diner patron can attest; it can easily be a term of endearment, depending on whether or not it's welcome. (Agar, for the record, was "more offended that he didn't answer the question"--hardly a rare occurrence on the trail.) Regardless, thousands of voters like Ruccia and Dixley (justifiably) cringed; they already felt that system that enabled Obama's rise--if not the players themselves--was sexist, and his slip merely reinforced that impression. And that's all that matters. Should the media obsess over "sweetie" instead of climate-change policy? Of course not. But when it represents the chasm between Obama and a sizable segment of his own party--unlike, say, Obama's plan to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050--it's impossible to ignore. Going forward, Obama has to win over at least some of the world's Ruccias and Dixleys (or their less vocal brethren)--even if he didn't create the Hillary Nutcracker with his bare hands or use Photoshop to depict Clinton as a witch. So the reason he said "sweetie" is less relevant than the reaction it produced, and the sense of marginalization it reinforced.

For his part, Obama immediately acknowledged as much. Shortly after three o'clock yesterday afternoon, the Illinois senator left a message for Agar apologizing for failing to answer her question--and for the word he used in doing it. "Second apology is for using the word 'sweetie,'" he said. "That's a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front." Gentlemanly mea culpa or necessary political maneuver? We report, you decide. But if Obama's "sweetie" episode illustrates anything, it's that the senator and probable nominee still has a long way to go on the dangerously narrow road to Democratic unity--especially where the passions of gender are involved. Kicking this particular "bad habit" is only the first small step.

Bush: Not Doing McCain Any Favors

Andrew Romano — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:47:10 GMT

Yesterday, we chronicled Vice President Dick Cheney's first foray onto the 2008 campaign trail and its catastrophic conclusion: a loss in Mississippi's scarlet red First District for Republican Congressional wannabe Greg Davis... to a Democrat (shudder). Now Cheney's second-in-command, President George W. Bush, has injected himself into the race as well--and his debut is proving to be even more spectacularly disastrous than his not-so-better half's.

Dubya's first mistake? Choice of venue. Speaking earlier today before the Israeli parliament in honor of the country's 60th anniversary, Bush kicked off the festivities by acting more or less, you know, "presidential." He spoke of America's unwavering support for the Jewish State. He portrayed the future of the Middle East as a time of "tolerance and integration." He reiterated his belief that democracy would triumph over terrorism. Oh, and then he used the diplomatic forum to launch a veiled but stinging attack on Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, breaking the unwritten rule of U.S. politics that partisan bickering stops at our water's edge. "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals," he said in the Knesset, "as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." The "some," White House aides privately confirmed to CNN, referred to Obama, who has said that as president he will engage in direct talks with the heads of hostile states--but has also made it abundantly clear that he will not sit down with "terrorists and radicals" like, say, Hamas. So much for seeming presidential.

And that was only the beginning. Turning up the heat, Bush went on to cast himself as Winston Churchill to Obama's Neville Chamberlain, implying that the Democratic senator favors "appeasing" terrorists much as some Western leaders sought to appease Adolf Hitler in the run-up to World War II. "We have heard this foolish delusion before," said Bush. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." Hyperbolic Nazi comparisons = never a political winner. Oy vey, indeed.

There is, of course, a valuable debate to be had over whether the U.S. president should agree to unconditional talks with, say, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. But by distorting Obama's stance beyond all recognition and using the charged context of the Knesset--along with a handful of inappropriate historical allusions*--to not-so-subtly raise further doubts about the Democratic candidate with Jewish Americans, Bush indicated that he's less interested in highlighting foreign-policy differences than in fear-mongering for political gain.

The point, it seems, was to boost John McCain. Unfortunately for Bush--and the GOP--the assault has proven to be pretty foolish politics. Like children with Christmas presents, the entire Democratic establishment immediately ripped into the president for his remarks. "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," said Obama in a statement. "It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel." Obama communications director Robert Gibbs called Bush's swipe an “astonishing” show of "cowboy diplomacy" and an “unprecedented political attack on foreign soil.” "Beneath the dignity of the office," said Nancy Pelosi; "Does the president have no shame?" asked Rahm Emanuel. DNC Chairman Howard Dean demanded that McCain "denounce these remarks in the strongest terms possible.” And Joe Biden summed up the situation in typically Bidenesque terms. "This is bulls**t," he said in a Senate hallway. "This is malarkey."

Whether or not Dubya's history lesson was, indeed, "malarkey," the Dems are smart to treat it like a big, shiny gift from Santa Claus. As the New Republic's Christopher Orr puts it, "Bush attacking Obama, and Obama counter-attacking Bush, while John McCain sits on the sidelines, is a disastrous dynamic for the GOP. The more Obama can frame this race as him vs. the most unpopular president in modern history, the easier a time he'll have in the fall." Before, Obama had to tie McCain to Bush to accomplish this task--and it was often a stretch, seeing as the Arizona senator has broken with the administration on issues like global warming and even Iraq strategy. But now that Bush has entered the ring himself, Obama can finally fight the opponent he's been itching to fight all along.

McCain, for his part, is left in an awkward position. After Bush's Knesset kvetching caught fire this morning in Washington, D.C., White House spokeswoman Dana Perino contradicted what aides had already told CNN and insisted that her boss wasn't referring to Obama. "There are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to," she informed reporters in Jerusalem. With that in mind, then, there are only two explanations for Bush's "who, me?" defense, and both align with the worst criticisms of his character: either he's too dumb to realize that the entire world would hear his comments as a swipe at Obama--highly unlikely--or he's being disingenuous. Hours later in Columbus, Ohio, McCain told the press that "he took the White House at its word"--a diplomatic response--and then pivoted to hit Obama himself. "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people," he said, "and that is why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?" Unlike Bush, McCain was honestly characterizing Obama's position and indicating an interest in substantive debate. But don't expect Biden, Pelosi, Dean, Emanuel--or Obama--to make that distinction for him in the fall. They'll simply say he embraced the radioactive president--implying that he must be either dumb or disingenuous himself.

In other words, "more of the same."

UPDATE, 5:17 p.m.: Another negative effect on McCain: Bush's remarks stepped all over his major speech this morning, which "was billed by his campaign as one of his most important to date and a summary of sorts of the past two months of policy addresses and promises." Although the McCain camp probably doesn't mind Bush putting Obama on the defensive re: a touchy subject like Israel, that benefit doesn't outweigh the costs of 1) having the day's message, which was geared toward independents, completely drowned out and 2) being forced instead to play sidekick to the most unpopular president in modern history--a sure turn-off for the very independents that McCain was supposed to spend the day courting.

* UPDATE, 5:34 p.m.: Why is the Nazi comparison inappropriate in this context? Blogger Matt Eckel of Foreign Policy Watch sums it up nicely:

Any benefits of Munich as an instructive historical precedent are now far outweighed by the analogy's power as an intellectually lazy rhetorical cudgel that is too often used to bludgeon any diplomatic initiatives that are, well, diplomatic. Not every autocratic country is Nazi Germany. Not every foreign dictator we don't like is Hitler. Not every threatening situation is most appropriately handled by eschewing diplomacy in favor of a "firm stance." ... Iran is not Nazi Germany. Though the Iranian regime is anti-democratic, and espouses values that are indeed antithetical to those of the liberal West, the notion that Iranian armies and proxies are poised to make a genocidal sweep across the Middle East is absurd. Even the Iranian nuclear threat, though serious, shows every sign of being able to be contained with an intelligent deterrence policy (should things come to that). Iran does not have a particularly impressive industrial base. Its infrastructure is mediocre, its economy is sclerotic (propped up only by high oil prices), and its regime is unpopular. Even the outrageous statements about Israel made by President Ahmadinejad should be taken with a grain of salt, remembering that the Iranian President is not the head of state, and that he is acutally at odds with much of Iran's clerical leaders.

The Perks of Secret Service Protection

Andrew Romano — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:44:17 GMT

For campaign reporters, the arrival of the sleeve-talkers on the trail is an inevitable inconvenience--and this cycle has been the most inconvenient so far.

Breaking with tradition, Secret Service agents have accompanied both Democratic candidates from the start of the season, continuing to follow former First Lady Hillary Clinton, who's been under their care since leaving the White House in 2001, and joining Barack Obama's campaign for the first time in May 2007--earlier than any other presidential hopeful in history--after he reported receiving death threats. That's meant traffic jams, pat-downs, metal detectors, comprehensive sweeps and bomb dogs at every campaign stop, plus less in-person access to the candidates themselves. The one bright spot: John McCain. In contrast to Clinton and Obama, he has long declined protection, preferring instead to enjoy the "relative freedom of delving into unscreened crowds and riding Amtrak trains unencumbered by an entourage."It's the inconvenience it causes people," he explained last November, even claiming that he would scale back his Secret Service detail if elected president. "It's a waste of the taxpayers money. It's just everything I don't like." Which is why it came as such an unwelcome surprise for reporters to learn in late April that the Arizona senator, bowing to wife Cindy's concerns, had finally accepted protection. "Certainly, having Secret Service protection impacts people's lives," former deputy director Barbara Riggs told ABC News. No duh, responded the press corp.

But according to my colleague Holly Bailey, who's traveling with McCain in Ohio today, it turns out that the new boys on the bus aren't all bad. Speeding to the Columbus airport this morning--the cameramen needed to arrive before the senator to snap a shot of him boarding the plane--McCain's press bus was pulled over by a local motorcycle cop. 65 mph in a 55-mph zone, he said. But just as the officer was about to write a ticket, a Secret Service agent intervened--and, after flashing his badge and mumbling a few words, was able to get the driver off with a mere warning.

Who knew these guys were so powerful?

When Opportunity Knocks...

Andrew Romano — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:35:53 GMT

Nothing like hearing from an old friend to brighten your day.

Last night at 7:42 p.m., an email arrived in my inbox from a fellow who hadn't bothered to call, write or visit in, oh, three-and-a-half months: former senator, vice-presidential nominee and 2008 presidential candidate John Edwards. (I join each candidate's mailing list on my personal account to keep tabs on what they're sending supporters.) The title--"Help Me in North Carolina"--piqued my interest. Was Edwards relaunching his presidential bid? Did he know that the Tar Heel state held its primary two weeks ago? Are his chestnut locks still as supple and shiny as ever? So many questions. Unfortunately, the content of the email was more "philanthropic" than "exciting." "We have been very busy since January working on the causes that got us into the campaign in the first place," wrote Edwards. "One of those programs [is] called College for Everyone -- a scholarship pilot project that Elizabeth and I started a few years ago in Greene County, North Carolina. The program is based on a simple promise to students: make good grades, work at least 10 hours a week, and stay out of trouble -- and the program will help pay for your first year of college." Then Edwards asked for "tax-deductible donations of $10, $25, $50 or $75, whatever you can afford." Hence that big green "Contribute Today" button on the right side of the page. No resurrection. No shampooing tips. Just a worthy request for cash.

It's no coincidence, of course, that Edwards chose this particular moment to send out his first message in months. Exactly an hour before releasing the email, the senator was standing on stage at the Van Adel Arena in Grand Rapids, Mich. endorsing his former rival Barack Obama for president--and generating a frenzy of media coverage (mine here) the likes of which he hasn't seen since withdrawing from the race on Jan. 30. There's no real precedent for an ex-candidate using his campaign mailing list--the message was "Paid for by John Edwards for President"--to solicit money for pet causes; Mitt Romney, for example, hasn't asked me to donate to the Automaton's Legal Defense Fund. And most of the time, that makes perfect sense--no one pays attention to people who once had a chance to be president (unless they're named "Hillary Clinton"). But for a brief, fleeting moment last night, John Edwards had our attention once again, and he chose to use it to his charity's advantage.The guy may have lost his bid for the White House--but he definitely hasn't lost his politician's sense of timing.

McCain Makes Some Noise

Andrew Romano — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:11:33 GMT

Launched in conjunction with today's speech in Ohio, McCain's new web ad, "2013," focuses on what he envisions achieving during his first term in the White House.

Here's Holly Bailey with a report from the McCain roadshow.

With the fight over the Democratic nomination still getting most of the attention, John McCain hasn't been making much news lately-and he seems fine with it. The all but official Republican presidential nominee has been touring the country raising money and giving speeches that don't tread much in the way of new stuff. Visiting the Northwest earlier this week on an environmental tour, McCain mostly rehashed positions we already know--namely that, contrary to President Bush, he strongly believes climate change is a big issue that needs to be dealt with. It's a revelation that isn't exactly breaking news to most of those who follow McCain regularly, but it did generate lots of coverage in the local news, which is what his campaign seems to be aiming for these days.

But the pendulum will no doubt swing back McCain's way thanks to a speech the senator is set to give this morning in the all important swing state of Ohio. Speaking before a local business group in Columbus, the Arizona senator will talk about how he believes the world will be in 2013, the year he might be entering his second term in the White House. It's a speech full of big time promises: that he'll be bipartisan, that he'll give weekly news conferences, that he wants to go before Congress and take questions regularly (town hall, anyone?) and in a dig at the Bush administration, he'll admit his mistakes. "When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them," McCain will say, according to excerpts provided by his campaign. But the big headline here will no doubt be that he sees a world in 2013 in which Iraq is stable and most of the troops are home. Here's the key paragraph, as released by the campaign:

"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role."

The key phrase here is this is how McCain "would hope to have achieved," so it's far from written in stone. But it's still a pretty notable statement for a guy who tends not to go into specifics of troop withdrawals from Iraq. The distinction in what McCain appears to be backing and what Democrats have advocated is that he'll bring the troops home by winning, as opposed to just simply bringing them home by the end of his first term.

Big picture: the speech is a preview, in part of how McCain will run against Barack Obama this fall. Already, McCain and his aides have sought to portray Obama as a guy gifted with the ability to give a soaring beautiful speech but who lacks substance. "There aren't very many specifics coming out of the Obama campaign," Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who is now advising McCain on economic issues, tells Newsweek. "John McCain has far more specifics out there about what he's really going to do."

McCain can talk all day about what he'll do, but what he'll actually get done is a different story. Today's speech doesn't explicitly say but acknowledges, as McCain often does, that if he wins in November he'll be working with a very Democratic, likely very hostile, Congress. "I am presumptuous enough to think I would be a good President, but not so much that I believe I can govern by command. Should I forget that, Congress will, of course, hasten to remind me," McCain says. "I will focus all the powers of the office; every skill and strength I possess; and seize every opportunity to work with members of Congress who put the national interest ahead of partisanship, and any country in the world that shares our hopes for a more peaceful and prosperous world." That's a lofty statement--but the bigger question is how McCain will make it happen.

The Filter: May 15, 2008

Andrew Romano — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:49:26 GMT

A round-up of this morning's must-read stories.

STEELING OBAMA
(Douglas E. Schoen, Los Angeles Times)
Conventional wisdom suggests that these last two months have been bad news for Barack Obama. He hasn't been able to close the door on Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who swept West Virginia on Tuesday. He's been dogged by controversies over his words and associates. Meanwhile, Republican John McCain has been getting a jump-start on the fall campaign. Although those things may be true, so is this: The last six weeks have been a great benefit to Obama -- and may emerge as the most important period of his quest for the presidency. The poll evidence is unambiguous: He's suffered no short-term damage. A recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama leading McCain in a hypothetical matchup by six points; in February, he was trailing by two. The Rasmussen Reports' estimate of electoral college strength has him leading McCain, 260 to 240. And a recent CBS/New York Times poll reveals that over the last few weeks, Obama's favorability rating actually increased by five points. So these controversies of early 2008 have strengthened, not weakened, Obama's position for the general election in November. How's that?

MCCAIN AIDE TRAINS HIS SIGHTS ON OBAMA
(Monica Langley, Wall Street Journal)
When it comes to Sen. McCain's image, Mr. Salter, 53 years old, is the campaign's chief creator, shaper and enforcer. For two decades, he has been the presumed Republican nominee's speechwriter, adviser and confidant. He has helped the senator write two best-selling memoirs, on which they split the proceeds 50-50. The senator says they are "like brothers." Now that Sen. Barack Obama has emerged as the likely Democratic nominee, Mr. Salter is poised to play a large role in a general-election campaign filled with potential land mines, from race issues to Sen. McCain's age, which is 71. Early signs are that Mr. Salter will urge a feisty campaign -- in character for a man who once wrestled a persistent critic of the senator to the floor of a congressional hallway.

CLINTON'S 11TH HOUR PUSH
(Alexander Bolton, The Hill)
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) rallied her Capitol Hill supporters on Wednesday night, telling them to bring an uncommitted friend and seeking to capitalize on her 41-percentage points victory in the West Virginia primary. But as she was scheduled to gather with her supporters, rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) grabbed another one — former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) endorsed him at a rally in Grand Rapids, Mich. Despite this blow, which handed Obama the support of a candidate whose appeal was largely to blue-collar workers, Clinton used the meeting at the Sewell-Belmont House to drive home the point that she is more competitive with precisely that category of voter, and in districts where Democrats will face their toughest races this fall. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser, Harold Ickes, met her congressional whip team Wednesday morning to make clear that she intends to stay in the race until June 3, the date of the last primary, despite recent speculation that she might drop her bid after Oregon and Kentucky hold primaries on May 20.

THE POLITICS OF THE LAPEL, WHEN IT COMES TO OBAMA
(Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny, New York Times)
It showed up on Monday, right there on his lapel, as he addressed veterans in West Virginia: a flag pin.There it was again on Tuesday, in Missouri, as he spoke to workers at a garment factory. And it was there Wednesday as he toured a Chrysler plant in Sterling Heights, Mich., near here in the Detroit suburbs. Seven months ago, Senator Barack Obama said he did not feel compelled to wear a flag pin, saying he would prove his patriotism in deed, not apparel. What gives? Was it the woman in Indiana who pulled him aside, gently suggesting that he wear one? Was it part of a larger embrace of all those things presidential candidates simply have to do on a campaign, along with eating cheese steaks in Philadelphia or chugging Miller in Milwaukee? Or was it in reaction to continued questions like the one this week from a local reporter in South Charleston, W.Va., who asked how Mr. Obama could attract “blue-collar, white voters in this state,” adding, “They think you are un-American.” None of the above, say Mr. Obama’s aides, who have insisted during these rare three days of pin wearing — the first consecutive days he has worn the pin in the campaign — that it is just fashion happenstance.

SIX WAYS THE GOP CAN SAVE ITSELF
(Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen, Politico)
1. Get a clue: Republicans desperately need to cook up some new ideas and craft an attractive agenda to have any chance of success. 2. Cut the crap: Republicans are dominating Democrats in one area right now: humiliating sex scandals. 3. Beg for help: The Republican infrastructure is crumbling... For now, Republicans need their rich backers to crack open their wallets. 4. Burn the Bush: There is something honorable about loyalty. But taken too far, it can start to look downright loony to voters. President Bush is as unpopular as Richard Nixon was in the days before his resignation. Cut him loose — quick. 5. Change the pitch — and your face: Several well-known Republicans said the party needs fresh, reassuring packaging and a more diverse crowd to deliver it. 6. Fan the fear: Ignore the critics, Republican wise men say — there is still no better way to win than to stir up concerns about Democratic patriotism and their commitment to national security and killing terrorists. It often remains the best call in the GOP playbook, especially with McCain atop the ticket.

OBAMA AND OREGON: MORE IN COMMON THAN 'O'
(Julia Silverman, Associated Press)
Portland and its suburbs seem tailor-made for Obama. Residents are liberal-leaning, upwardly mobile, well educated and strongly opposed to the Iraq war. About 45 percent of the statewide Democratic primary vote in recent elections has come from the Portland area. Obama will not be able to count on the kind of big turnout from black voters that has boosted his vote totals in some southern states. Blacks account for only 1.7 percent of Oregon's population, compared with 12.4 percent nationally, according to the Census Bureau. Also, the rest of the state is not as young or as hip as Portland. Overall, Oregon's population is slightly older and has a slightly lower income than nationally, 2006 census data shows.

AGITATED? IRRITABLE? HOSTILE? AGGRESSIVE? IMPULSIVE? RESTLESS?
(Dana Milbank, Washington Post)
House Republicans may be heading off a cliff in November, but give them credit for perseverance. Even after the new slogan they floated -- "The Change You Deserve" -- was discovered to be trademarked ad copy for the antidepressant drug Effexor, GOP leaders decided to go with the rollout anyway... For House Republicans, the diagnosis is obvious: They are suffering from Election Anxiety Disorder. Tuesday night, they lost the third special election in a row to Democrats in heavily Republican congressional districts. Eighty-two percent of Americans say the country is on the wrong track, and they're largely holding President Bush and his party responsible. This week, panicked House Republicans defied Bush and voted with Democrats to pass a farm bill and to divert oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

GOP CANCER: PARTY COULD LOSE 20 MORE SEATS
(John F. Harris and Josh Kraushaar, Politico)
The Republican defeat in Tuesday’s special election in Mississippi, in a deeply conservative district where, in an average year, Democrats cannot even compete, was a clear sign that the GOP has the political equivalent of cancer that has spread throughout the body. Many House GOP operatives are privately predicting that the party could easily lose up to 20 seats this fall. Combined with the 30 seats that the GOP lost in 2006, that would leave the party facing a 70-vote deficit against Democrats in the House — a state of powerlessness reminiscent of Republicans’ long wilderness years in the 1960s and ’70s. Things are not particularly more hopeful on the Senate side, where most analysts say Democrats have a strong chance of adding five or more seats to their current majority.

DEMOCRATIC HOLD ON JEWISH VOTE COULD SLIP
(Elizabeth Holmes, Wall Street Journal)
Is the Jewish vote up for grabs this year? Many Republicans think so -- particularly with Barack Obama likely heading the Democratic ticket. That calculation has fueled an intense back-and-forth in recent days between the two parties over Sen. Obama's views on Israel. While both Sen. Obama and Republican John McCain have strong pro-Israel records, Sen. McCain is seizing on other issues, such as Sen. Obama's willingness to meet with Iran's president, to press his case with Jewish voters. Republicans say Sen. McCain may be uniquely suited as their party's nominee to draw Jewish support. He has a reputation as a moderate on some domestic issues and backing from Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, a prominent American-Jewish politician and former Democratic vice-presidential candidate. Obama backers say their candidate's positions on social issues are more in tune with Jewish voters' views.

PRO-ABORTION RIGHTS GROUP BACKS OBAMA OVER CLINTON
(Sam Youngman, The Hill)
NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) Wednesday in what is another blow to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) nomination hopes despite her landslide victory in the West Virginia primary Tuesday night. NARAL officials said Wednesday that Clinton’s “viability” was an issue, but the group will not help Obama compete against her in the remaining primaries. "We are going to be focusing all of our efforts on the Obama-McCain race,” Elisabeth Shipp, NARAL’s political director, said... In a statement, Nancy Keenan, the group’s president, praised Clinton and Obama. “Pro-choice Americans have been fortunate to have two strong pro-choice candidates in Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, both of whom have inspired millions of new voters to participate in this historic presidential race,” Keenan said. “Today, we are proud to put our organization’s grassroots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election. That candidate is Sen. Obama.”

Does Edwards Matter?

Andrew Romano — Wed, 14 May 2008 23:11:01 GMT

At 6:45 this evening, John Edwards strode on stage at the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids to the sounds of Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising." "The reason I am here tonight is because the Democratic voters of America have made their choice," he said. "And so have I." His choice? Judging by all the "Change You Can Believe In" signs shimmering in the crowd--and the lanky black guy standing with him onstage--it was (drumroll, please) Barack Obama. Henceforth, the heavens opened, the American people wept and Chris Matthews and Co. began to prattle endlessly about how Edwards will help Obama win over those stubborn "white, working-class voters" who've been bedeviling him in the primaries.

The frantic coverage is a given. But will the Edwards endorsement actually change anything? It's unlikely--and the reason is timing. If the former North Carolina senator had taken a real risk and sided with the Illinois senator back when someone not named "Barack Obama" had even the remotest chance of clinching the nomination--say, before Super Tuesday, or Ohio, or even Indiana--he might have helped his blue-collar base overcome its suspicions, vote for his chosen candidate and bring this interminable battle to an end. But after Hillary Clinton failed to meet her own expectations in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, every sentient life-form on Planet Earth pretty much agreed that the former First Lady wouldn't be representing the Democratic Party in November. From that point on, Edwards endorsing Obama was a foregone conclusion. Edwards is a Democrat. Obama's the Democratic nominee. It had to happen eventually.

All of which is just to say: there's not much that an Edwards endorsement does for Obama right now that it wouldn't do on, say, June 4. (Besides shifting the storyline from "Obama isn't winning the Bubba vote" to "maybe he will.") The "white, working-class" voters of West Virginia can't recast their ballots. And Clinton will still clobber Obama--think 25 points--in Kentucky on Tuesday, even if Edwards joins him on the stump. With the primaries essentially over, Edwards is basically stepping into his inevitable general election role--a credible liaison to blue-collar America who seeks to sway skeptics by saying "I'm one of you and here's why I support this guy"--a few weeks early. When I mused this morning about why seven percent of West Virginians supported Edwards in yesterday's primary, a reader from West Virginia named "mountaingal" wrote in to explain. "I can tell the difference between pandering (Hillary downing shots), charismatic fluff (Obama's rhetoric) and honest-to-goodness conviction. [Edwards] understands where we come from... His 'son of a mill worker' message... resonates with those with similar upbringings." For that reason, Edwards will undoubtedly help bring Democratic voters like "mountaingal" into the Obama fold by November. But again, he was always going to do that. Whether he starts today or in two weeks doesn't make much of a difference.

That said, it's worth wondering how many mountaingals and mountainguys Edwards can "deliver" for Obama on Election Day--and whether those gains would actually help Obama overcome John McCain. The signs from his brief 2008 bid are somewhat encouraging. In South Carolina--the only remotely "Appalachian" state where Edwards competed--he won white men, whites over 30 and whites overall, despite earning only 18 percent of the vote to Clinton's 27 and Obama's 55. The only problem? Edwards has already attempted a similar feat on the national stage--and it didn't work out so well. In 2004, John Kerry captured only 41 percent of the white vote--not enough to defeat George Bush--and lost in Edwards' home state of North Carolina by a dozen points. Back then, Edwards wasn't just another surrogate; he was Kerry's running mate. So his record is mixed at best.

Tonight, Edwards opened his remarks with reams of praise for Clinton--and an explicit call for unity. "When this nomination battle is over--and it will be over soon--brothers and sisters, we must come together as Democrats and in the fall stand up for what matters for the future of America," he said. "We are a stronger party because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat." A gracious and necessary message, but even here it's unlikely that Edwards' timing will prove particularly consequential. Clinton is determined to battle at least until Montana and South Dakota vote on June 3, and any effort to declare a victor before then will only encourage her supporters to dig their heels in deeper. Far from changing any minds--other than those of a few fence-sitting superdelegates, perhaps--tonight's endorsement will merely reinforce the existing contours of the contest. The Democrats will come together eventually, and Edwards will do his duty. But until then, he--like the rest of us--is just going to have to wait.

Yet Another Sign the General Election Has Already Begun...

Andrew Romano — Wed, 14 May 2008 20:35:55 GMT

1. The Republican Party in Kent County, Mich. releases an unbearably loooong B-grade web ad questioning Obama's patriotism ahead of his visit this evening to Grand Rapids. "Everyday, with more than 300 million separate voices, in thousands of communities large and small, we raise our families, celebrate our freedom, remember our heritage and strive to live up to our values," says the bombastic narrator as the color slowly, dramatically fades from a rippling American flag. "But Barack Obama sees a different America. From his elite point of view [insert 'bitter' comments, hamas 'endorsement' here]... So next time Barack Obama says he offers change you can believe in, ask him to show you his flag." Somewhere, a bald eagle is weeping.

2. Obama shows up in Missouri yesterday wearing--gasp!--a flag pin on his lapel, which he apparently donned at some point between Washington D.C. and Cape Girardeau:

3. Conservatives set their creaky "flip-flop" machinery in motion. "What gives?" writes Byron York of the National Review, noting that Obama also wore the pin in West Virginia and Michigan this week. "This is the man who said in 2007, 'The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.' What has changed?"

Asked that very same question yesterday in Missouri, Obama said, "Sometimes I wear it, sometimes I don't"--sort of like John McCain. But something tells us that in this case "sometimes" means either "every day between now and the fourth of November" or "never again."

UPDATE, May 15: Top Obama strategist David Axelrod on Obama wearing the flag pin, to Forbes.com: "I think he'll be doing more of that." Mystery solved.

Keeping Hope Alive

Andrew Romano — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:39:35 GMT

Here's Suzanne Smalley with a post-West Virginia dispatch from Hillaryland.

"It's not over! It's not over!" The chant echoed through the Charleston Civic Center last night as defiant Hillary Clinton supporters urged their candidate to keep on fighting. The almost all-white crowd included a disproportionately large number of elderly women. The sparsely decorated main hall of the civic center—the barren walls made it all too obvious that Clinton's campaign is desperately low on funds—didn't matter, because the crowd kept things festive. Teenage girls wore homemade T-shirts saying "Hillary's Tag Team." A young man standing behind the podium where Clinton delivered her victory speech steadily punched an invisible opponent with red boxing gloves. A group of union members launched into a booming "Madame President" singsong.

...

More than a dozen Clinton supporters interviewed by NEWSWEEK said they believe Clinton can still win, and many faulted a biased media for prematurely writing her off.

Helen Lambert, 76, said she and her husband drove to Charleston for the celebration because "it's not over until the lady in the pantsuit says it's over." Lambert said she has been a resolute supporter of the Clintons for decades. But Hillary has a special place in Lambert's heart. "She's so brilliant and so experienced," Lambert said. "She's smarter than all of those men … I just don't have any room in my brain or my heart for anybody but Hillary." Phyllis Rutledge, 76, agreed, saying, "I know she's gonna be president."

Keith Gwinn, 54, said he blames "the media hype" for prematurely ending the race. "If it is over why haven't they declared him the winner?" he said in reference to the presumptive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama. Gwinn said he is eagerly anticipating the May 31 decision of the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which will decide whether and how much weight to allocate to Michigan and Florida voters. (The national party stripped both states of their delegations as punishment for holding their primaries early, a decision that may be reversed by the rules committee). Barbara Yeager, 71, went even further, saying she'd like to see Clinton take her bid all the way to Denver. Yeager said a contested convention would be a way for Clinton to defy the media and win the nomination; she believes a convention floor fight would be exciting—and wouldn't hurt the party. "The media decides [the nomination] well in advance, and that's a shame," Yeager said. "TV has given her opponent way too much free time in coverage that she did not have equal access to."

Many in the crowd were hostile toward Obama. Jeanne Kendall, a 64-year-old lifelong Democrat from Eleanor, W. Va., thinks he's arrogant and said she'll sit out in November if he's the nominee. "If Obama wanted to win in West Virginia he should have made more visits," she said. "I don't think he thinks we come up to his standards."

There was an ugly tone to some of the crowd's comments about Obama. Menina Parsons, a 45-year-old Democrat from Milton, said she will not vote if Obama becomes the nominee. She said she is concerned about his "black supremacist" preacher and worries that Obama has family ties to radical Muslims (which is not true). Parsons said that because of these alleged ties, "if Obama gets in I'm concerned that the terrorist is gonna have an easier way in. I don't think he's real. I don't think he's American." Margaret Conner, who said she is "100 percent" Democrat, said she'll vote for McCain over Obama because she is alarmed by Obama's association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and, more generally, she is suspicious of Obama's "background, his heritage." Conner said most of her Democratic friends also plan to vote Republican if Obama wins the nomination.

If Clinton's team was aware of the kind of sentiments that helped pump up their 41-point margin, they didn't let on. A jubilant Terry McAuliffe, the campaign's chairman, ran up the aisle of the campaign's charter plane en route to Washington late last night and shouted at the press, "West Virginia, baby! We are sweeping this thing!"

READ THE REST HERE.

Dick Cheney: Not the World's Greatest Surrogate

Andrew Romano — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:19:05 GMT

Poor Dick Cheney. He was only trying to help.

Judging by the blog buzz and Beltway chatter, yesterday's most significant and surprising election wasn't the one in West Virginia--apparently, everyone expected Hillary Clinton to win--but the cagematch in Mississippi's First Congressional District, where Democrat Travis Childers’ thumped Republican Greg Davis 54-46. The odds were in Davis's favor. George W. Bush won this heavily red Deep South district by 45 points in 2004. Republican Roger Wicker had captured the seat with 63 to 79 percent of the vote every two years since 1994. And Childers' bears an uncanny resemblance to the Dudley Do-Right villain Snidley Whiplash, known less for his legislative prowess than his proclivity for tying damsels to the railroad tracks. But the Democrat pulled it out, winning in a "district no center-left party has any business winning"--and showing that the GOP is in for a disagreeable November. "Can it get any worse?" asked the pundits. We're screwed, said the panicked memo from National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole of Oklahoma--who, along with House Minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), is reportedly on the brink of getting canned. Apparently, it's three strikes--Cole also lost earlier special elections in heavily Republican Illinois and Louisiana districts--and you're out.

Clearly, the NRCC suspected this catastrophe was coming. How else to explain its decision to summon Vice President Cheney from the shadows of his cavernous, undisclosable lair and send him to the Memphis suburb of DeSoto Monday for a last-minute appearance on Davis's behalf? Desperate times, it seems, call for desperate measures. In case you're wondering, Cheney's job approval rating nationwide is about 15 percent, which, for the sake of comparison, is slightly higher than Eliot Spitzer's and slightly lower than Congress's--so it's no wonder that this week's Dixieland swing was his first of the season (McCain and the veep? Not BFFs.) Presumably the NRCC expected the shiny-pated scowler to excite the base in scarlet northwest Mississippi, where his positives are undoubtedly higher than in, say, the rest of the known universe. And judging by the scene at his DeSoto Civic Center rally, a few of the faithful were indeed swooning. "It's like a part of history to me," said Southaven resident Shirley Rodman. "It's an opportunity to see a leader of our country. You don't get those opportunities often."

Ultimately, though, history wasn't enough. A few weeks back, in a parallel effort to rile up Mississippi's far right, the NRCC launched a series of spooky, possibly race-baiting ads linking Childers to Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But as the New York Times reported this morning, "tying the white Democrat to the black presidential candidate may have helped Mr. Childers more than it hurt him, as campaign aides reported heavy black turnout, heavier than in a vote three weeks ago when he came within 400 votes of winning." Cheney may have spurred similar backlash, as the vast majority of voters who disapprove of Cheney--even in Mississippi--may have been less inclined, not more, to support a candidate who welcomed the current administration's approval (instead of distancing himself from it). “There’s a lot of people that are mad at Bush,” a DeSoto Republican named Jim Jennings told the Times. That's why the Davises of the world are in danger in the first place--and probably why Dick Cheney, of all people, is the wrong fellow to come to their rescue.

Before the returns rolled in last night, Cheney vowed to continue campaigning through November. "Neither the President nor I will have our names on the ballot this year," said Cheney in his remarks (Dubya recorded a get-out-the-vote robocall for Davis). "But we're still focused on the work at hand... and so we'll put our shoulders to the wheel for John McCain, and for [our] excellent congressional candidates." They may want to reconsider. Of course, that doesn't mean Cheney and Bush should stay home for the rest of the year. In the coming months, the dynamic duo could still boost the GOP's fortunes by headlining fundraisers, where they remain a reliable draw; the veep's Mississippi visit, for example, reportedly raked in $120,000 for the party. Even then, though, their efforts are not likely to make much of a difference. After all, the NRCC dropped $1.8 million, a quarter of its total funds, on the Childers-Davis title bout--and still got KO'ed.

Oh well. We hear Washington, D.C. is lovely in the autumn.

John Edwards 4Ever!

Andrew Romano — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:27:47 GMT

Someone's smiling in Chapel Hill.

On January 30, four days after earning an embarrassing bronze in his birth state of South Carolina, former North Carolina senator and Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards returned to the ravaged city of New Orleans, where he'd launched his 2008 presidential campaign 13 months earlier, and announced that he was abandoning his bid for the White House. ""We do not know who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," he said, "but what we do know is that our Democratic Party will make history." For the record, that was 105 days ago.

Apparently, 26,181 West Virginians are either unaware of that fact--or don't really care.

When the Mountain State primary returns rolled in last night, no one was surprised to see Hillary Clinton carrying 67 percent of the vote, or Barack Obama finishing a distant second with 26. That's precisely what the polls predicted. But John Edwards with seven percent--more than a quarter of Obama's vote? This was a guy who hadn't been a living, breathing candidate for president for three-and-a-half months, and had only drawn four percent in Nevada when he still was. It's worth noting that Edwards' name has remained on most post-Jan. 30 ballots, and in the early stages of his electoral afterlife, he scrounged up some support: 10 percent in Oklahoma, five percent in Arizona and four percent in Tennessee on Super Tuesday. But since then, he's only managed to snag two percent (Ohio), one percent (Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Mississippi) or zero percent (everywhere else) of the vote. Which makes his seven-percent finish in West Virginia all the more surprising--and significant.

Most pundits are interpreting the Edwards resurrection as a bad omen for Obama. It "presage[s] problems for him in a general election match-up with [John] McCain, particularly in rural states such as West Virginia," writes the Politico's Kenneth P. Vogel. And insofar as Obama will inevitably face McCain in November--unless, of course, a sperm whale slides onshore and swallows him whole--that much is true; you can lump these Edwards voters with the 47 percent of West Virginia Democrats who told exit pollsters they'd vote for McCain over Obama, or simply refrain from voting. But it's worth remembering that Edwards is not only white--he's a guy. Plenty of Mountain State Democrats--okay, most--dissed Obama by voting for Clinton. The 26,181 who went out of their way to cast useless ballots for a white, male non-candidate were voicing their opposition to Clinton, too. Making history? they thought. I'll pass. All of which goes to show that neither of the remaining Democrats--despite Clinton's claims to the contrary--would stand a particularly strong chance of winning West Virginia in the fall. If a full seven percent of Democratic primary voters (the most loyal of party loyalists, mind you) are so repulsed by both viable Dems that they'd vote for the nonexistent Edwards instead, just imagine how the other half of the electorate--i.e. the half that doesn't like any Democrats, and that carried Bush to a 13 point victory there in 2004--will break on Election Day. Almost heaven? Try a little lower.

If his strong showing basically proves that his beloved Democratic party will lose the Mountain State to McCain, why did I joke earlier that Edwards is smiling at home in Chapel Hill this morning? Call it the "I Told You So" factor. Before Clinton's recent populist transformation, Edwards occupied the post of pugilistic people's candidate. (He wore jeans; she wears pantsuits. Enough said.) And last fall, his campaign's main argument was--surprise, surprise--electability. "It's not just a question of who you like," he said in Iowa. "It's not just a question of whose vision you are impressed with. It's also a question of who is most likely to win the general election." Like Clinton, Edwards' logic relied on the implicit notion that some swing voters aren't ready to elect an African-American; unlike Clinton, it also relied on the implicit notion that some swing voters aren't ready to elect a woman. "Obama's drawback is obvious," Cliff Ferguson, an Edwards supporter from Hamburg, Iowa, told me last October. "If he gets the nomination... all kinds of people will crawl out from under their rocks and throw mud. Boy, it'll be ugly. And it's the same with Hillary, 'cause she's a woman. Attacks are all they have, the Republicans."

If Clinton loses the Democratic nomination, and Obama loses the general election, it may look, in the end, like the white dude was right all along.

The Filter: May 14, 2008

Andrew Romano — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:43:28 GMT

A round-up of this morning's must-read stories.

HILLARY: I'M HERE, GET USED TO IT
(Byron York, National Review)
Obama’s supporters, in the campaign, in the Democratic party, and in the press are desperate for her to leave the race precisely because her support is so substantial; her continued presence is a daily reminder of how profoundly divided the party is at this moment. Her landslide 67-26 victory over Obama in West Virginia — she won by 147,410 votes — won’t change that situation. The oft-repeated fact that no Democrat since 1916 has won the White House without winning West Virginia won’t change it, either. But together, those two facts show just how far Democrats have ventured into uncharted territory this year. If Obama is to win the White House, he’ll have to do it in a brand-new way, winning states that Democrats haven’t won lately with diminished support in states that have been important to Democratic victories in the past. Clinton’s campaign reminds Democrats of that, and it makes some of them nervous.

'ALMOST NOMINEE' STATUS KEEPS OBAMA IN LIMBO
(Jim Rutenberg, New York Times)
Even as Mr. Obama prepared to suffer one of his worst defeats of the primary season on Tuesday, aides said his lead in delegates and in the popular vote had him feeling like a winner. And his visit here with garment workers in a district that President Bush swept in 2004 was an intended show of strength, with Mr. Obama affecting the manner of a general election nominee raiding opposition territory, the birthplace of Rush Limbaugh no less. But on the flight here from Washington on Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Obama’s aides acknowledged that, in political terms, he is neither fish nor fowl, unable to go after Mr. McCain quite the way he would if he had the nomination clinched — lest he alienate Mrs. Clinton’s supporters by seeming presumptuous — and unable to fully dismiss her continued challenge.

MORE: Obama Reaches Out to Workers in Cape Giradeau (St. Louis Post- Dispatch)
As working-class voters in West Virginia largely rejected him, Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama flew to this Republican stronghold in a key swing state to woo a similar audience Tuesday. His aim: to show the nation — and fellow Democrats — that he's going to keep pursuing such voters as part of his quest to capture the White House this fall. His pitch: that despite his education and political connections, he also hails from a blue-collar background and shares the middle-class' economic hopes and fears — unlike presumptive Republican nominee John McCain... The audience cheered when Obama pointed out that he was wearing a union-made suit manufactured in the United States. The suit's lapel sported an American flag pin, largely absent from Obama's wardrobe until Monday and Tuesday. Asked about the pin, he said: "Sometimes I wear it, sometimes I don't."

OBAMA MAY HAVE HIS WORK CUT OUT FOR HIM TO DRAW INDEPENDENTS
(Jackie Calmes, Wall Street Journal)
Barack Obama can't rest should he soon win Democrats' presidential-nomination marathon. His next big challenge: to introduce himself to the independents who may well decide the November election, and dispel the doubts and misinformation that have taken hold among many. A focus group of independent voters here Monday night suggested that the Illinois senator is largely identified by his association with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose much-publicized sermons have been called racially divisive and anti-American. Yet Sen. Obama is also identified by many -- incorrectly -- as a Muslim, and suspect for that as well.

MORE: Rumor Mill Keeps Obama on Defense (Washington Times)
This week in West Virginia, the rumor mill was working at full tilt, flagging the work the Obama campaign faces to set the record straight before November and highlighting the hurdles of urban-myth attacks on candidates. Mr. Obama — who is Christian and says the Pledge of Allegiance regularly — sometimes shrugs off questions about the rumors with jokes, but he increasingly has been forced to quash them outright.

MCCAIN CONSULTANT IS TIED TO WORK FOR UKRAINE PARTY
(Marc Jacoby and Glenn R. Simpson, Wall Street Journal)
A consultant to Sen. John McCain hired a public-relations firm last year to burnish the U.S. image of a Ukrainian political party backed by Russian leader Vladimir Putin, according to documents filed with the Justice Department. The lobbying firm of Davis Manafort Inc. arranged for the public-relations firm's work through an affiliate last spring, at the same time Davis Manafort was being paid by the Republican presidential candidate's campaign. The firm is co-owned by lobbyist Rick Davis, manager of Sen. McCain's presidential campaign, and longtime Republican strategist Paul Manafort. The Arizona senator has endorsed a political movement in Ukraine that is at odds with the Putin-backed Party of Regions. The work for the Ukrainian party represents the latest issue to arise for the McCain campaign involving aides' ties to foreign interests. Last weekend, the campaign parted ways with two former lobbyists for the military government of Myanmar after their ties were reported in Newsweek.

OBAMA, MCCAIN AIM TO CURB '527s'
(Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear, Washington Post)
Sen. Barack Obama's top fundraisers have asked his campaign donors to refrain from contributing to liberal independent political organizations in hopes of controlling the tone and message of the general-election campaign.At a meeting in Indianapolis on May 2, members of the Democratic front-runner's finance committee made it clear Obama (Ill.) is worried that overtly negative advertising from outside organizations could undermine his themes of unity and hope. "If people want to support our campaign, they should do it through our campaign," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. The meeting was only the most overt effort by Obama or Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee, to freeze out "527" groups -- named after a provision in the tax code -- which are not allowed to openly support a candidate but have helped define recent elections through negative advertising. The McCain campaign has been less organized than Obama's in its efforts to counter the groups, but the senator from Arizona has made clear his antipathy toward them -- without much effect.

IT'S FINALS TIME FOR STUDENT SUPERDELEGATES
(Antonio Vargas, Washington Post)
All that online pressure, all the instant messages on AIM and Gchat, all those YouTube comments and Facebook messages and wall posts added up to something: Two more delegates for Sen. Barack Obama. In a YouTube video posted shortly before midnight yesterday, Lauren Wolfe and Awais Khaleel, who as president and vice president of the College Democrats of America are among the youngest Democratic superdelegates, endorsed Obama. In the two-minute video, Wolfe said: "We've received over 5,000 e-mails . . . hundreds of YouTube comments. . . . We support Senator Barack Obama." More than two weeks ago, Wolfe and Khaleel did what no superdelegate had done before: They posted a YouTube video asking college students to tell them whom to endorse.

MAYBE WE CAN'T
(Cinque Henderson, New Republic)
Ninety percent of black Democrats support Barack Obama. So that might leave an observer wondering: What the hell is up with that other 10 percent? Are they stupid? Do they hate their own race? Do they not understand the historical import of the moment. I can shed some insight on this demographic anomaly. In gatherings of black people, I'm invariably the only one for the Dragon Lady. I'll do my best to explain how those of us in the ever-shrinking minority of a minority came to our position. So much of the educated white people's love for Barack depends on educated white people's complete ignorance of and distance from the rest of us. Barack is the black person they want the rest of us to be--half-white and loving, or "racially transcendent," as the press loves to call him. And, since picking a candidate makes you allies with his other supporters, why would I want to be allies with educated whites whose glorification of Barack depends in large part on their implicit denigration of the rest of us?

West Virginia's No-Win Primary--and What's Next

Andrew Romano — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:04:03 GMT

And the winner is... no one. Hillary Clinton may have received the most votes in today's West Virginia primary, taking 67 percent of the vote and netting 10 delegates. Barack Obama may have moved one step closer to clinching the Democratic nomination. But as the polls close, the odds of Clinton topping her party's ticket are still impossibly long, and the worries about Obama's potential weakness among white, working-class swing voters in November are more justified than ever. Thanks for nothing, West Virginia. You may want to consider changing your slogan from "Open for Business" to "Everybody Loses."

With pre-primary polls showing Clinton set to clobber Obama by 37 points in the Mountain State, her staff didn't bother to wait for the returns to roll in before they began to brag. In a memo emailed to reporters around 1:00 p.m., Team Clinton ticked off the reasons "Why West Virginia Matters": as the "presumptive nominee," Obama "outspent us on advertising," "sent "more staff" to the state, opened "more than double the number of offices" and "benefited" from the backing of Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Congressman Nick Rahall, West Virginia's top elected officials. But despite all those advantages, they added, Obama couldn't "close a significant gap." Fair enough; Clinton did, after all, win by 41 points--one of the largest primary margins so far this season. At a different place and time--say, before she failed to meet her own expectations in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6--such boastful spin might have sounded pretty convincing. "In Washington, some people say the presidential primary in West Virginia doesn't much matter," she told voters in a last-minute radio ad. "But you know what? Tuesday, we can show ‘em."

Unfortunately for the former First Lady, who spent the past week hawking her new populist message in Appalachian hamlets from Webster to Clear Fork, the one thing worth bragging about in this twilight phase of the interminable Democratic nominating contest is the one thing she still doesn't have on her side: the math. Trailing Obama by 170 delegates, she's 316 short of the nomination. The problem? There are only 189 delegates available in the remaining primaries. Assuming Clinton splits them with her rival, she'd still have to win 94 percent of the uncommitted superdelegates to reach the magic 2,025 majority. That seems unlikely--to put it mildly. In the past week alone, Obama has added 30 superdelegates to his tally (or more than Clinton would've gained if she'd won every single Mountain State vote). Clinton's take? Three. Tonight, West Virginia didn't reveal any new voting patterns; everyone is well aware that blue-collar Dems prefer Clinton to Obama. So it won't convince the superdelegates to suddenly change their minds. “Obama is so far ahead at this point, it is hard to see anything we do, even big wins, being a game-changer,” a senior adviser told the New York Times this morning. Regardless of what Clinton says on the stump or on the radio, that's not just Beltway chatter. It's reality.

Still, it doesn't mean that Obama's evening was any more enjoyable. Last week, Bill Clinton told voters in Madison, W. Va. that he's "hoping... Hillary can get eighty percent of the vote," and yesterday in Logan, State Senate majority leader Harry Truman Chafin raised the stakes further. "We’ve got to give her a vote tomorrow of 80-20 or 90-10," he said. "Let’s get the national media’s attention." Tonight, the Obama camp wants to spin the gap between those predictions and Clinton's actual, 41-point margin as some sort of letdown. Phooey. For Obama, the only Mountain State numbers that matter--other than his painfully meager 26 percent of the overall vote--are 72, 24, 20 and two-thirds. The first--72 percent--is the share of white Democrats who supported Clinton. The second--24 percent--is Obama's share of the same swath of the electorate. The third--20 percent--is the percentage of whites who said the race of the candidate was a factor in their vote, second only to Mississippi. And the fourth--two-thirds--is the percentage of those Democratic voters who said they'd support John McCain over Obama in the fall. What's more, Obama lost white women 22-73; white men 30-60; and whites earning less than $50,000 a year 24-72. Fifty-two percent of Democrats said Obama didn't share their values; 47 percent said they'd vote for McCain or refrain from voting instead.

This doesn't bode well for Obama's general-election chances in the Mountain State. It's true that there's no direct link between primary results and general election performance; after all, Obama won't lose Massachusetts to McCain just because Clinton trounced him there on Feb. 5. And as the Obama campaign noted in an email to reporters this afternoon, the Illinois senator is "running as well or better than past Democratic candidates among white voters" nationally versus McCain. But the general election is a series of swing state battles, and West Virginia is a swing state--that just so happens to be very poor and very, very white (like, 94 percent). While Obama's deficits in Pennsylvania and Ohio (9 points or so) were small enough--and the states themselves were diverse enough--to render any November predictions completely bogus, it's almost impossible to imagine Obama overcoming a deficit more than four times as large in a state that's almost uniformly populated by a white, working-class, less-educated Appalachian demographic group widely opposed to his candidacy. Especially against a crossover candidate like McCain. So, like his predecessors John Kerry and Al Gore, Obama should be prepared to lose West Virginia's five electoral votes on Election Day. It's not a crushing blow, by any means--and Clinton would be no shoo-in, either--but it would make a razor-close contest with McCain that much harder to win. And remember (as Clinton keeps reminding us): no Democrat has captured the White House without the Mountain State since 1916.

Clearly, Obama would rather not linger--or have the press linger--on that sobering thought. In keeping with the pattern of the week, Clinton spent election night celebrating in Charleston, W.Va, and Obama, whose four-hour visit Monday was his first and only stop in the state since March 20, stayed as far away as possible, choosing instead to hold an economic discussion in the swing state of Missouri and forgo any sort of Primary Night address. The decision was revealing. While Clinton deals with the contest one day at a time, Obama is already pivoting to the general election. After Missouri, he travels Wednesday to Michigan for the first time in 10 months, targeting Reagan Democrats in suburban Detroit and reassuring voters that he wants the state's rogue delegation seated at August's convention, then continues on to the other scofflaw state of Florida next week for three days of stumping, fundraising and huddling with party activists. Meanwhile, Obama has focused his rhetorical fire exclusively on McCain over the past seven days, excising Clinton's name from his usual attacks on what was, until last Tuesday, "the McCain-Clinton gas-tax gimmick." "[McCain's] only answer to the problems created by George Bush’s policies is to give them another four years to fail," he said today in Missouri. "Just look at where he stands and you’ll see that a vote for John McCain is a vote for George Bush’s third term." In Chicago, the campaign has even "begun collecting resumes for communications staff for the general election." And friendlier terrain awaits Obama in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.

For her part, Clinton is moving a little slower. According to the Times, she plans to spend Wednesday meeting with advisers and top fund-raisers to discuss the future of the campaign, and despite public pronouncements from her perpetually effervescent campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe ("We are going through to June 3"), aides would only say that they "believed she was likely to remain in the race until the Kentucky primary next Tuesday"--another guaranteed blowout. That seems like a safe bet. Still, the biggest remaining question about Clinton's candidacy--or, rather, its conclusion--isn't "when?" but "how?" With $20 million in debt and fundraising slowed to a trickle, Clinton can't afford to run a full-on, scorched-earth campaign through the convention unless she loans herself another $11 million--at least. But the truth is, the money isn't nearly as prohibitive as the politics. When Clinton noted in an interview with USA Today last week that "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again," the reaction was swift and stinging. Quit playing the race card, cried the chatterati. (Incidentally, a lot more West Virginians thought Clinton attacked Obama unfairly [59 percent] than vice versa [50 percent], despite her overwhelming win). Whether Clinton was sowing division or simply discussing demographics, she seems to have decided since then to limit her analysis to her own strengths, rather than her rival's soft spots. In fact, the Clintonites' afternoon memo--unlike, say, the previous Pennsylvania edition--didn't even mention the words "blue-collar" or "working class," let alone "white." Her strategists have likely concluded that any efforts to link race with electability will only further alienate superdelegates reluctant to back her in response to an argument based, in part, on voters' perceived bigotry--meaning that the final leg of her campaign should be as polite, if determined, as tonight's victory speech.

But just because an argument is politically counterproductive doesn't mean it's untrue, at least locally. Today, the Democrats of West Virginia did nothing to move Clinton closer to the White House--all while revealing how difficult it will be for their probable nominee to win the state in November. Talk about a lose-lose situation.

ALTER: Clinton's Last Stand

Andrew Romano — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:41:28 GMT

While you wait with baited breath for the results from West Virginia, here's Jonathan Alter's take on the Clinton endgame:

Before getting to Hillary's game, let me introduce a new ace in the hole for Obama. For all the talk of numbers, there's one that will be most important for superdelegates: 1.5 million. That reflects the 1.5 million names of donors that the Obama campaign has on file. Because no contribution below $200 is publicly reported, the vast majority of those names are in Obama's exclusive possession, to be shared as he wishes. As Graham Richard, the longtime mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., explained it to me last week, it's all about the Benjamins. Local officials (that's who most superdelegates are) need the tens of thousands of Democratic donors on that list who come from their states. Their re-election depends on successful fund-raising. No Obama at the top of the ticket, no list. No list, and you may be back selling insurance after November.

...

With big wins in West Virginia and Kentucky, Hillary will likely hang on for at least a month. She can keep campaigning with a bare-bones, McCain '07-style operation and, despite some legal impediments, pay off debts with huge fund-raisers after the election. One key moment will come at the May 31 meeting of the rules committee of the Democratic Party, which is packed with Clintonites. She could likely manipulate the committee to push the Florigan question to the floor of the Denver convention in late August. That doesn't guarantee a floor fight, but the threat of one gives Hillary a weapon to use both in private and in public.

In private, negotiations will open between the Clinton and Obama forces. Even if Obama has reached the magic number of 2,025 delegates needed to nominate (Clinton is now claiming the real number is higher), the Clintonites will have plenty to talk about that relates to the management of the convention. And Hillary has the wily and heedless Harold Ickes on her side. In the past, Ickes has caused big problems for the eventual nominee, and in those days he held fewer cards than he does this year. In 1980, Jimmy Carter led Ted Kennedy by more than 700 delegates at the end of the primaries—but Ickes, representing Kennedy, created a series of procedural obstacles that turned that year's convention into a sour mess and helped doom Carter in the fall. In 1988, Michael Dukakis had sewn up the nomination but needed to deal with the complex question of what Jesse Jackson wanted. Ickes, representing Jackson, made Dukakis look weak, which softened him up for George H.W. Bush in the fall. Obama has said he would negotiate with Ahmadinejad, but he'd be smart not to extend the same courtesy to Ickes.

Publicly, Hillary may hint that she is interested in the vice presidency. This is what I've picked up from some of her friends in recent days. Even if she decides against it, keeping the option alive gives her political leverage through the spring and summer. Her legions of backers will clamor for Obama to name her, and he'll look bad if he excludes her from his shortlist. This could force him to name a running mate sooner than he would like. He could even get caught in a jam like John F. Kennedy's in 1960. That year, JFK offered the vice presidency to Lyndon Johnson, who was the powerful Senate majority leader. Bobby Kennedy thought LBJ would say no, but he didn't. JFK and LBJ were forced into a shotgun marriage that left neither of them happy. Is something similar in store for 2008? It all depends, as Bill Clinton once testified, "on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

READ THE REST HERE.

The Stumper Superdelegate Watch, Part V of ???: 'So Close You Can Almost Taste It.'

Andrew Romano — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:33:41 GMT

Click through for parts one, two, three and four.

Memo to Democrats: your votes don't count.

I'm referring, of course, to average, everyday Democrats--the kind who have hair that moves and own but a single American flag tie. If you're the other kind of Democrat--i.e., one of the 795 elected official or party activists known as superdelegates--nevermind. Seeing as there's aren't enough plain old primary delegates left for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to reach the magic 2,025 majority--or for Clinton to significantly slash Obama's current 175-delegate lead--yours are the only votes that still matter. At this point, only the superdelegates can prevent forest fires. And pick the Democratic presidential nominee.

This comes as no surprise, I'm sure, to anyone with a functioning nervous system. But it's worth taking a deep breath from time to time and checking in on these all-powerful party poobahs. Hence the Stumper's time-honored Superdelegate Watch.

So where does the superslugfest stand? Mere moments from a TKO--in Barack Obama's favor. On Feb. 5 (a.k.a. Super Tuesday) Clinton was clobbering Obama by 90 superdelegates, 260-170. But by Feb. 28--after 11 straight Obama wins--Obama had picked up 34 and Clinton had lost 6, narrowing the gap to a mere 50. Despite Rev. Wright, Bittergate and the nagging questions about his blue-collar appeal, a steady trickle meant the Illinois senator won a full 80 percent of superdel commitments in February, March and April, and finally overtook his rival on Friday. Overall, between Super Tuesday and this morning, Obama has netted a convincing 114 superdelegates to her 16.5, and now leads 281 to 276.5 in the super sweepstakes. Can you say comeback?

That said, the most striking stat--and the one that makes it painfully clear how improbable a Clinton coronation has become--is Obama's current Rate of Commitment (or ROC, because acronyms make everything sound more official, even if they exist only in my mind). Since the commentariat crowned Obama "the nominee" last Tuesday--prematurely, but not without reason--he's picked up a staggering 29 superdels. (For comparison's sake, that tops his total take from March 6 [after Ohio and Texas] to April 23 [after Pennsylvania].) The problem for Clinton? Right now, Obama has 1878 total delegates; she lags with 1699.5. If Obama keeps snagging supers at an ROC of 29 per week, he'll hit at least 1965 by the end of primary season--meaning that he'll only need to win 60 (or 28 percent) of the remaining primary delegates from West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana to reach a 2,025 majority and clinch the nomination before June 3. If Obama exceeds 28-percent support in the final primaries--a safe bet, considering he's the favorite in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota--the magic moment will likely arrive in May.

As the final hour approaches, then, expect Clinton's rallying cry of 2,209--the revised delegate majority if Florida and Michigan are included in the equation--to increase in volume and intensity. But as we wrote last week, the senator from New York would actually be further from clinching the nomination after those rogue states are factored in and the bar for winning is raised--an inconvenient truth, seeing as nothing that happens between now and June 3 will reverse the flow of superdelegates to Obama. Asked this morning whether Clinton should quit, former Colorado Governor and DNC Chairman Roy Romer--one of four Obama superdelegates to announce so far today--told reporters that "the math is controlling." "This race, I believe, is over," he said. "The more information she has about where superdelegates are, I think it will help her in that decision."

In other words, Obama's superdel trickle has finally become a flood--and Clinton is about to get swept away.

P.S. Yes, the title is a reference to "Unwritten" by Natasha Bedingfield. And yes, Stumper watches The Hills. But only because, like, Girlfriend of Stumper is really into it.