Clinton pundits are throwing the kitchen sink at Obama this morning, showing just how desperate they are becoming. Expect much much more of this over the coming days. Obama's rise from the ashes of Clinton's aura of inevitability (how is that for messianic imagery?) has been so quick, they seem to have been caught unprepared. Just three excerpts from this morning:
Paul Krugman:
Why, then, is there so much venom out there? I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of "Clinton rules" — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
Gee, let's see. You are a nobel-worthy economist writing for the most prominent journalist institution in the U.S., and you have focused more than half of your latest columns on taking down the only Democratic front-runner who opposed the Iraq war, while devoting the other half to such minor developments as the collapsing economy, the FAILURE of the surge in Iraq, the foreclosure crisis, not to mention 6+ psychos running for the Rethug nomination. Why would anyone possibly be upset with you?
Oh, and which Obama supporters do you cite for your claims of venom and hate?
And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, "doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
Ahh yes, well-known Obama supporter and hero-worshiper, David Shuster.
Susan Estrich:
It happened in New Hampshire. It happened again in Nevada. It happened last week in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and even in New York. It’s not easy to figure out, but it deserves to be addressed...
But it’s also a sign of Obama’s weakness which, it seems, we who chatter for a living have been reluctant to speak about, lest we be tarred with having raised the "race card."
But, the fact is that there is a long pattern of what we in California call the "Bradley problem" in polling, after the former Los Angeles mayor who was elected governor in every poll, including the exits, except that he lost at the ballot box. Did I mention that he was African-American? That was, according to the pollsters, the problem: about 10 percent of the electorate claimed that they were going to vote for him, and in many cases even told pollsters that they did, but they lied. Shocking. Racism in America. Who’d a thunk it?...If this is happening even among us good Democrats, what does that say about Obama’s strength in a general election? Not pretty questions. Not a fair world.
First Ms. Estrich, Obama vastly outperformed polls in red & purple states like Colorado, Idaho, Alaska, Georgia, and Missouri, and Kansas. He underperformed polls in some blue states like Massachusetts and California. So by your logic, Californians and Massachusetts Democrats are racists, but Missouri and Georgia Democrats are open-minded multiculturalists? And this hurts Obama in the general election because, as we all know, California has a lot of electoral votes. If McCain wins there, it is over. Right. Oh, and this so-called "Bradley Effect" (who had ever heard of that?); would you mind citing the political science journals where you read about it? It is just useful when we are explaining it to our friends so we can give them a reference. You know, for the sake of credibility.
Jerome Armstrong:
I have heard Clinton's many times, and its been played out in the Democratic nomination battle. She'll take an unprecedented high level of women and Latino majorities into winning almost all (or nearly all) the states that John Kerry or Al Gore won, and add in: Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Florida. Maybe there are some other states, but if we just add those 42 electoral votes to the Democratic column, Clinton would win.
Seriously, how does Obama get past 270, state by state? Independents you say, then where, which state?
Actually Jerome, it goes like this: HE'LL take an unprecedented high level of MEN, YOUNG PEOPLE, INDEPENDENT VOTERS and AFRICAN AMERICAN SUPER(DUPER)-majorities (BECAUSE OF INCREASED TURNOUT), not to mention winning almost all (or nearly all) the states that John Kerry or Al Gore won, and add in: Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and maybe Ohio and Georgia.
So to sum up: (1) One guy on a hack network said a sexist thing about Chelsea Clinton; therefore Obama's candidacy is about hatred; (2) we hate to upset you, but there is this thing called "racism;" therefore Obama will lose; (3) Hillary Clinton is a better statistician/excel spreadsheet user than Obama; therefore Obama will lose to McCain.