She Has a Point

I know that Hillary isn't too popular around here. That's fine. I'm not a Hillary fan, and I'd rather see Obama in the White House. But PA confirmed what Ohio hinted at: Obama is having a lot of trouble closing the deal in large swing states, even among Democrats and with considerable funding advantage. This says something, and not good, about his chances in November.

Not, mind you, that I think Hillary could do better. She has led a poor campaign and the famous Clinton money machine has been outmatched by "inexperienced" Obama. Her negatives are sky-high, her fear-mongering disgusting. Yet even a broken clock is right twice a day, and we have to face the fact that we've got a bad situation here.

In the year that we are supposed to take back the White House, the chances of that actually happening are decreasing by the day.

How did we get here?

Before I attempt an answer at that question I have to confess that I was originally a Gore supporter.

Naturally then, I blame Gore for this mess. I blame him because it was apparent to anyone willing to see that neither Hillary nor Obama were solid candidates.

Gore is better qualified than Hillary or Obama put together, because he has an authentic interest not just in the environment but in science and technology. These shape no only our country but our era. Obama and Hillary are at best indifferent to these topics.

But Gore isn't running, so why bother talking about him?

I'm not proposing Gore step in to run. I'm no expert but I just don't see how it could work. He had an opportunity and, IMHO, a responsibility, but he blew it. He has said he's a bad politician, he could have tried to improve though, given the stakes.

But he is still a party leader, and one of the people who can push to end this thing.

We all know that having the superdelegates reverse the popular vote can only spell disaster. This fact coupled with simple math dictates that Obama is it. But his candidacy is a long shot, so I think Gore should act quickly to improve his odds. He should endorse Obama and vigorously campaign for him. He should do this for the party and the country, but he should not do it for free. He should only do it if Obama agrees to seriously combat climate change. This would give Gore a solid, objective reason to back Obama. His support would be consistent with his current efforts rather than a mere detour into party politicking.

This would give a clearly worn Obama much needed time to rest and retool for an effective fight against McCain. It looks to me that the latest the time to do this should be the Indiana/North Carolina primary. Waiting till June simply makes no sense. Running Obama for president is a gamble to begin with. A late start would only make things worse, for no good reason.

I wish Gore was running, but a Gore-backed Obama is the next best thing.

•  This is nonsense

  Look at the spreadsheet that was leaked after Super Tuesday which outlined pretty much how Obama was going to win the nomination.

  And then tell me he isn't right on track.

  Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

  by InsultComicDog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:51:26 PM PDT

  •  Link?

    I've been trying to find this spreadsheet and I've been unsuccessful.  I reeeeeally wanna look at it.

    by Dapremonster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:52:31 PM PDT

    •  It is the one Tim Russert

      goes to over and over again, and it haa pretty much been on point.

      by icebergslim on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:53:25 PM PDT

      •  I know.

        I just want to see it.  I'd love to have it on hand as a reference for future races.

        by Dapremonster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:07 PM PDT

      •  Yep

        the sheet had PA Clinton by 7 - so 9 is very close. Especially that far out.

        by ZappoDave on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:15 PM PDT

    •  Google it ....

      One of the first links is

      http://www.politico.com/...

      I don't think I've seen the actual spreadsheet ... only a "screen print" as in the link above ...

      by Obviously Bogus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:05:28 PM PDT

      •  I should have read the page I quoted !!!

        This is the spreadsheet itself

        http://ia341038.us.archive.org/...

        by Obviously Bogus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:08:40 PM PDT

        •  Sweet!

          Thank you.  I'm normally an awesome intersleuth, but I think my Google is broken.

          by Dapremonster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:25:13 PM PDT

•  I am not worried about this.

  Right now we have two candidates who are pulling differently.  Once we have one, Obama, we will all come together.

  November is about the illegal, chaotic, lying, Bush Administration.

  We will have to run against Bush and make the GOP do this.

  DEFEND YOUR DECISIONS, GOP.  DEFEND IT.

  That is how we run and beat McCain.  And when the debates come around, Obama will be a breath of fresh air.  Have you heard McCain in debates?  He is horrible.

  by icebergslim on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:52:43 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    There are a lot of people who have been Hillary supporters for a long time ... and who haven't been ready to quit being Hillary supporters, as long as she was still in the race, no matter how inevitable Obama is.

    I understand that.  I would have been voting for John Edwards, even if he'd been pulling 10% per primary, when Texas rolled around.  And in 2004, with the deal pretty much done, I voted for Dean anyway.

    This is people choosing between two candidates they want to win ... and not voting against one candidate.

    by balconesfault on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:44 PM PDT

  •  Obama isn't so hot himself in debates.

    Listen, national presidential elections are always close. McCain is big with the older blue-collar working class Democrat demographic that's Hillary's bread and butter and Obama is having trouble getting. Many already voted for McCain back in the 2000 primaries. He's a war hero and all the rest of it. You can count on well-timed Swiftboating as well. It is going to be a brutal campaign; some republicans are risking jail time if they don't retain power. They will fight tooth and nail

    He will not be easy to beat and I don't care what any spreadsheet says.

    by M Aurelius on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:02:26 PM PDT

    •  A good thought to keep in mind, lest we start

      to feel overconfident:

      some republicans are risking jail time if they don't retain power.

      by lineatus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:07:32 PM PDT

  •  useless

    by LaEscapee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:16:06 PM PDT

•  Um...

  "Obama is having a lot of trouble closing the deal in large swing states, even among Democrats and with considerable funding advantage. This says something, and not good, about his chances in November."

  Missouri, Virginia, Colorado?

  Cali, NY, NJ, and Mass hardly qualify as "swing states."

  Ohio and Penn were rough, no doubt, but hardly blowouts in states she was up by double the end result...

  by Aqualad08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:53:22 PM PDT

  •  Michigan

    CA will vote for Obama. So will New York, and MA.

    NJ is not so solid. It has voted Republican rather often. You missed Michigan, and Florida. I know Obama wasn't on the ballot but the polls favored Hillary there, not to mention Florida.

    Bear in mind Obama had six weeks and triple the money. Close the gap is the least he could do. You set too low a bar if you settle for that.

    by M Aurelius on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:24:33 PM PDT

    •  I disagree

      You aim for the win of course, but he also forced Hillary to spend more than she had just to retain PA. Now she is raising money which will all have to be spent in NC and Indiana. Obama will outspend her both places AND start organizing and advertising in other primaries coming up that Hillary will not be able to spend any money or time in unless and until she finishes strong enough in two states in two weeks.

      Sure, he spent triple the money, but that's because he was able to raise so much more money, and that makes him more, not less electable. You don't get a handicap just because you can't raise as much money.

      Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

      by InsultComicDog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:34:23 PM PDT

•  I don't consider racist white rural voters...

  true Democrats that stand for what I stand for (it's the racist part that bothers me).  And if we alienate them by having a black candidate they can go to hell (and identify with their true party).

  Obama is having a lot of trouble closing the deal in large swing states, even among Democrats and with considerable funding advantage. This says something, and not good, about his chances in November.

  by C Dawgg on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:53:51 PM PDT

  •  hear hear

    And we can win the GE without them. Hell, pandering to them would be... triangulation!

    by tonyfv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:56:48 PM PDT

  •  Do you really think...

    ...that 55% of PA Democrats are white, racist, and rural?

    Look at the demographics. If it was just about racists (rural or not, white or not), I wouldn't care either.

    It's not though.

    by M Aurelius on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:18:42 PM PDT

    •  It was primarily her advantage with senior voters

      who don't tend to be independents come fall anyway.

      Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

      by InsultComicDog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:35:34 PM PDT

    •  no

      But I didn't say that.  There were "Democrats" in PA that voted based on race and that is why he lost.

      Not everyone who voted for Clinton is a racist, some of them are just ignorant or stupid.

      by C Dawgg on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:46:19 PM PDT

  •  If you assume that people only voted against

    Obama because they are 'racist white rural voters', then not only are you sorely mistaken, but then you have some generalization issues of your own.

    You see, some Democrats, after years of Bush, want to kick some serious Republican butt.  They see Clinton as being able to do that. Obama, not so much, especially with all his talk of bringing people together.

    So I think it is as unfair to paint people who vote for Clinton as being generally racist as it is to paint Obama supporters as generally sexist.  In some cases it may be true, but as a generality, I think you have to give other Democrats more credit than that.

    by Catesby on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:20:20 PM PDT

•  No

  Obama is having a lot of trouble closing the deal in large swing states

  That meme is far less relevant than the question of why Clinton can't close the door on Obama.  He might be the frontrunner, but in many ways he's still the underdog.  Clinton has massive institutional support, especially in the big states that the 90s-era 50%+1 strategy courted heavily.  

  by socratic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:54:30 PM PDT

  •  Both candidates are strong...

    ...in their own way.  And that is the reason NO ONE has been able to close the deal yet.  Both are strong candidates.

    Obama is I think a better campaigner than Clinton and I think he has the advantage of being a political innovator while Clinton is relying on pre-Bush campaign tactics that just don't work well because they're the same tactics that got us Worst.President.Ever....twice.

    People have moved on.  They've wisened up.  They've been pissed off and paying attention.  Obama is poised to appeal to that electorate that is ready for a new face, a new name, and new ideas.

    by DawnG on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:12:53 PM PDT

    •  Looking at that Obama spreadsheet

      from way back when, I don't think his campaign expected to win a big knockout blow.  They've planned - and planned well - for the long haul, and it speaks volumes that a skinny guy with a funny name is winning the voters he's winning, even when he loses.

      by socratic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:14:55 PM PDT

•  Primaries are not the same

  as the General Election. Thank you.

  by roycej on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:54:40 PM PDT

  •  My only regret

    is that I have but one rec to give this comment.

    No-one would claim that Obama's failure to win in California means CA will go for McCain in the general. Why is a swing state any different?

    by Rupert on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:07:06 PM PDT

    •  Beacuse it's a swing state!

      Meaning you need every potential vote.

      In CA you can piss off a lot of Democrats and get away with it. In a swing state, you can't do that.

      by M Aurelius on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28:05 PM PDT

•  Respectfully sorta disagree

  I completely think you are making a valid argument regarding his inability to reach certain sects of voters.  However we as Obama supporters want to discount this, it isn't so much a problem as much as a possible concern.  Obama needs to make sure that he can pull the vast majority of those people back into the fold.  If he doesn't, game, set, match.

  I don't agre with, however, the premise that he can't close the deal.  The fact is Clinton is was a three headed giant in Pennsylvania means that reducing his deficit 15% is extremely significant.  What should really worry Democrats is that CLINTON lost 15% of her voters.  What does that say about her as a candidate?  

  He is on an upward trajectory, she is on a downward trajectory.  

  I see either a joint ticket or a solid VP that brings the party back together, almost Gore-esque.  

  by texasblueproject on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:32 PM PDT

•  Al where are you?

  I so agree with your diary..with a McCain in the White House Al Gore stands to see everything he wants to change continue as if Bush never left the White House.

  Hillary Clinton also represents the status quo and with endorsements from Mellon Scaife I can only think it is going to be business as usual for vested interests, particularly the American Enterprise Institute and Defense of Democracies crew.

  Is this really what Al Gore wants?

  by ohcanada on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:53 PM PDT

•  Gore could end it.

  But can you imagine the relentless, intense, suffocating pressure being applied by Bill Clinton right now?  

  by Hope08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:56:21 PM PDT

  •  Bill may huff and puff

    but the wind is gone from his lungs. As a result of his role in this campaign, his credibility with the dem activists and leaders has tanked.
    Gore now has gravitas, but he will not wallow in this little mudfight Annie Oakley has wrought upon us.

    by tonyfv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:33 PM PDT

•  It would have been nice if Gore did

  step in earlier, but Obama has to prove himself capable of taking on Clinton, the machine, the RNC, McCain and so far it looks like despite all the odds, he's doing quite well.

  Don't use the Clinton's talking points about Obama inability to "Win Big States".  Big states according to her criteria.  Why weren't people asking how come she can't win the Caucus states? How come he won 11 states in a row and she didn't win any?

  Why is the bar so high for him and no one is asking, with her advantage, how come a new start up is beating her?  Why aren't those question being asked of her?

  by jalenth on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:58:30 PM PDT

  •  Because it's more fun to beat up the front runner

    especially if your news organization is making money off this race and would like to see it continue.

    by lineatus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:04:34 PM PDT

  •  Well, if you bother to read my diary...

    ...you will see that I don't think she's viable. I have nothing to ask her because I don't think she can win.

    But that hardly proves Obama can, or that he can't use some help.

    by M Aurelius on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:15:06 PM PDT

•  Different Voters

  vote in the Dem Primary and the General Election

  and the Dem Primary was between Clinton and Obama
  the Gen Election will be between Obama and McCain.

  Your diary blurs those distinctions.
  Please stop repeating illogical Clinton talking points.

  Obama cut Clintons advantage in half in PA.
  In Texas, he did close.
  But the point is, he doesn't have to blow her out or win every state in order to get the nomination.
  He only has to get to a certain number of delegates to get the nomination.
  Yeah, he'll need a few superdelegates, but I am guessing he will have them.
  That is how the Democratic Part nomination contest was set up.

  by chrisc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:58:41 PM PDT

•  Obama is a solid candidate

  just open your eyes and see all the people at his rallies.  I have never seen anything like this since JFK.

  Hillary has her elderly ladies supporters that want their first Lady President.  Once Hillary is out of the race, many if not most, of these ladies will support the Democrat over the Republican.

  Obama clinch the nomination in WI.  Hillary is the one who can't make a come back.  And now with an insignificant margin of a win in PA, she has no possible mean to win the most pledged delegates.

  Obama probably could use some rest but he is young and certainly can regain his energy much faster than Hillary or McCain could.  It doesn't hurt him to be campaigning in the remaining states.  

  All of us just need to ignore the nonsense the TV talking heads feed us.  

  by Fools on the Hill on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:32 PM PDT

  •  FYI

    I don't watch TV, so they are not feeding me anything.

    I'm not talking about energy, I'm talking about resting to gain mental perspective. He's too in the trenches right now. That leads to costly mistakes.

    There are a lot of elderly ladies, by the way, and Dean had great rallies. Rallies are nice. A large one has 10,000 people. We need 60 million votes.

    by M Aurelius on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:11:50 PM PDT

•  I suspect you have bought into

  the post PA spin a little too much.

  It harks too much of the "important states" vs. the inconsequential ones.

  Let me put out a scenario for you. TX polls was shown to be astonishingly close between McCain and Obama. Now, winning CA, IL, NY and TX would account for over half the EV votes right there. Yes Clinton won CA and NY in the primary, but do you seriously for a micro second think the Dem nominee will not win CA and NY?

  Do you think Clinton will win OH and PA on conservative issues against McCain? "Oh, my dad taught me to shoot..." vs. "Military member, POW"

  Now, who knows if Obama could really win in TX, but I'd lay good money on the fact that he would make it close enough the Republicans would sweat and have to spend $ to defend it, money they couldn't pump into Mi and Oh and PA and FL.

  The "He can't close it" can be countered by "She can't even get close enough to make a serious offer"

  by edgeways on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:56 PM PDT

  •  No I haven't

    I thought Obama was not strong enough back in October, way before any primary. In fact I thought we had a weak field generally.

    I'm not surprised by what is happening right now. PA has little to do with this perception.

    by M Aurelius on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:05:28 PM PDT

    •  How do weak candidates

      generate record registrations, record turnout and record fundraising?

      In case you missed it, McCain got less than 75% of the vote in an uncontested primary. That's weak.

      by Rupert on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:12:37 PM PDT

    •  yeah, see I'm sorry but I don't agree

      with your assessment, both in general and in particular. Rupert already referred to the huge turn out, but also keep in mind that a retaliative newcomer to the national political scene is now beating the combined most successful democrat wife/husband team in the past god knows how many years, and has managed to do so with a minimal amount of negative attacks.

      Primaries are not the GE... Primaries are not the GE... Primaries are not the GE

      by edgeways on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:19:55 PM PDT

  •  In addition

    to TX, I'd throw out there a few Southern states like SC that are generally very red but may become purple with an energizing Democrat in the race.  There are a lot of dispirited Democrats in the South (I used to be one of them; I'm still in the South, but I'm not dispirited), and Obama might - might - be able to get them to the polls if McCain is deflated by a combination of ambiguous support from the Religious Right and deflating his impostor persona with facts about his real positions.

    by socratic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:07:40 PM PDT

•  Gore backing Obama.....

  .....will not help. Gore's political pull faded a mere days after the Supreme Court stole the election. We on the left love him, but the rest of the country regards him as too lefty. He will lend no credence to Obama and cannot solve Obamas negatives which are: 1) He is perceived as "other", that is, on the political fringe, 2) He is perceived as unpatriotic and, my personal choice, 3) You can't stammer your way into the White House. You have to punch and punch hard. Everytime he gets hit, he makes an "important speech". Not gonna work in this country. Might work in Denmark.

  Anyway, Gore-pining has to end -- he isn't running and it has been 7 years since he was important on the political scene.

  I do agree with you though that we are screwed but for different reasons: we have two very good candidates who do not share a constituency.

  by Bensdad on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:02:59 PM PDT

•  No he doesn't

    have that problem. Primaries are not indicative of general election strength. Get that nonsense out of your head.
   
    nothing in our political history supports such a notion.

  by usmeagle69 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:04:12 PM PDT

•  This BS

  deserves 3 Y A W N s up!!! Congrats/

  by jbjowe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:08:39 PM PDT

•  I just don't think the dynamics of the present

  are going to apply to the general election at all.

  People are worried about nothing.  This is the year of the blue tide, and nothing can stop it.  The only thing I believe that can go up or down is the margin of victory and number of seats taken from the Republicans in Congress.

  by AndyS In Colorado on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:08:43 PM PDT

•  when the nation

  turns the television on the debate between the young tanned Obama vs the Old insider McCain that asks the moderator to repeat the question (because he didn't hear it) then they will know who to choose.

  This is Clinton vs Bush all over again

  by soros on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:11:50 PM PDT

•  How Clinton ends her campaign will affect the

  outcome.

  It's pretty obvious at this point that each candidate is strongly entrenched in their strongest supporting demographic groups. There seems to be a tendency for each side to "assume" the other will come back once the process is over. I don't think that is an automatic assumption.

  Whether it's older females or African Americans, I see trouble ahead if strong efforts are not made from either side at reconciliation after the race. That's what makes "fight it out at the convention" such an absurd idea.

  I have no doubt that Obama would do the right thing and work publicly and vigorously to elect Clinton. I am not confident in the other scenario. The Clinton camp has not given one microgram of evidence that they are interested in anything but the Clintons.

  I hope I am dead wrong about this. One thing I do know: we will get the clearest possible picture of the moral character of Bill and Hillary Clinton over the next 6-8 weeks.

  by Azdak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:12:19 PM PDT

•  She has a point

  But if she wears a hat no one will notice.

  /ba domp bomp

  by HGolightly on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:14:28 PM PDT

•  as Rick Pitino told the press in Boston...

  after a long Celtics losing streak, "Larry Bird is not walking through those doors."  Now I will tell you, "Al Gore is not walking through those doors."

  BtW, what makes you think Al Gore is strong with white working class folks? What makes you think environmental issues are big in the white working class neighborhoods?

  by jbou on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:25:05 PM PDT

  •  Best question of all the comments

    Actually, I don't think Gore is strong with that demographic. So you are right in that sense.

    Gore's main contribution would be to buy additional prep time for Obama and an Obama-centered convention (It takes time to put these things together to achieve a harmonious result). I'm not so much proposing him as a vote getter, but as a tourniquet.

    Gore can also fund-raise, and that means he has influence over a lot of campaigns. Don't underestimate his pull within the party right now.

    But Obama is going to have to be the one to figure out how he gets to this demographic. It's a tough sell, but not impossible so long as he's not distracted.

    by M Aurelius on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:39:29 PM PDT

•  Obama can't close the deal...

  because women voters will not give up on Hillary.

  Consider:
  http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...

  From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
  *** The secret to Hillary’s success: So how did Clinton win so decisively last night? The answer is women, specifically white women. They continue to be as important to her success in these primaries as new voters and African-Americans have been to Obama. Per the exit polls, 47% of the Pennsylvania Democratic electorate last night was made up of white women, higher than any other race/gender subgroup.

  Clinton ended up winning them by more than 30 points, 66%-34%; in Ohio, she won this group, 67%-31%. The question that everyone seems to be asking now is: Why can’t Obama put Clinton away?

  The AP’s Ron Fournier takes a stab at answering this, and he points to five reasons (race, working-class voters, friends in trouble, inexperience, and mettle). But to us, women seem to be the bigger reason. They continue to rally to her side; nothing has shaken their confidence in her. If Clinton continues to beat Obama by 30-plus points among white women, how can he knock her out?

  The point is here is twofold: Clinton is getting the bulk of votes from women; AND, (white) women are a huge plurality in the PA electorate; and I'm very sure that was true in Ohio.

  As long as women will vote for her against all odds, she can and will keep going.

  by EarthTone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:41:51 PM PDT

•  McClatchey article on the white vote...

  Alas Rendel was right (or is that Wright)... at least 15% of White Dems won't vote for a Black man. Is that tipping for McCain in general? Is increased black turn out, the war, the economy, etc enough?

  I urge you to see also:

  http://media.mcclatchydc.com/...

  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/...

  sigh

  by DrSteveB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:55 PM PDT

•  Actually he never said he is a bad politician.

  And someone who won many races will never say that.

  He said that in today's political culture he is not very good at the things required to tolerate the never ending spin cicle.

  That says more about how bad our political culture is than about how bad a politicians Gore is.

  Afer all Gore had the exact same style and attitude in the 70s and 80s and he won every race in a state where most voters were conservative blue collar assholes. They didn't think Gore was a bad politician at all, in fact back then he was regarded as a good politician who managed to bring issues into the spotlight even if they were not sexy like the promise of computer networking for the average person.

  by elender on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:34:48 PM PDT