Scandal/Hoo-Ha Number One: The Muslim "scandal". This stems from his having the same name as his dad, who funnily enough didn't grow up as "John Smith" in Whiteville, USA. The idea is that he's lying to us all and isn't really a Christian, no matter how many times Tim Russert makes him denounce Louis Farrakhan on national TV.
Ironically enough, this hoo-ha was shot down by another hoo-ha, the Reverend Wright "eeeeeek look look look at the scary angry black man" hoo-ha, as all but the most determinedly rockheaded among us understand that it's a little hard for Obama to be a closet Muslim if he attends a Christian church. Though the real nutters are of course trying to have their Muslim cake and eat it too by saying that Wright and/or Obama are faking it.
Scandal/Hoo-Ha Number Two: The Reverend Wright Hissy Kabuki. This thing was pushed heavily by both Hillary's camp and the press for the past six weeks, but don't expect to hear much about it in the general. Why? Because John Sidney McCain III has his own Angry Scary Preacher, a guy named John Hagee -- and though he's tried to hide it, McCain actually sought out the guy's endorsement.
Why is John Hagee so dangerous to McCain? Because, among other things, he hates the Catholic Church and Catholicism in general. He refers to the Church as "The Great Whore", which is not something McCain's handlers want the conservative Catholic voters in places like Ohio to discover. But of course, many people wonder that fanning the racism in the dog-whistling way implicit in these two hoo-has might hurt Obama with whites. Which brings us to this:
Scandal/Hoo-Ha Number Three: White voters (especially the all-important white male lower/working-class vote) won't go for him, but will go for Hillary (well, in the primaries, anyway -- who knows about the general). This particular hoo-ha, which is still a favorite of the Clinton camp (see Hillary's comments here, apparently designed to woo Appalachian voters in West Virginia) was neatly dismantled last week by Charles Blow (h/t Al Giordano), but some extra sand was kicked in its face by Obama's surprisingly strong showing in certain North Carolina counties in which he was never expected to be competitive. Furthermore, there's this:
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that in Indiana, Obama split working-class voters with Clinton and won a higher percentage of white voters than in Ohio in March. He said Obama will be the strongest nominee because he appeals "to Americans from every background and all walks of life. These statements from Sen. Clinton are not true and frankly disappointing."
[UPDATE: And check this out:
As you can see, North Carolina performed roughly as we might expect, falling in between Virginia and Tennessee. Nevertheless, it is surprising that the results were closer to the Virginia end (i.e. Obama +29) than the Tennessee end (i.e. Clinton +13). What might explain the difference?
Unlike Indiana, it doesn't come from Clinton's core voting group. She did extremely well among white voters in North Carolina. Obviously, she didn't do as well with them as she did in Tennessee. However, she still trounced Obama among white men and white women, regardless of their religious affiliation.
Clinton's problem was with the African American vote, which came in at about 33%. Her trouble in North Carolina, as well as the South in general, is that white voters are more likely to be Republican than in decades past. This has given Obama a demographic edge in the region - one that has actually grown in the past few months. Note that African Americans in North Carolina went for Obama more strongly than they did in either Tennessee or Virginia. In fact, we can see a general trend in the African American vote toward Obama - not just in these states, but nationwide. It has not been much commented upon - most likely because African Americans have been supporting Obama more strongly than any other group. Nevertheless, as time has gone on, the African American vote has clustered around Obama much more tightly.
Furthermore, as the graphs show, her main advantage among white Democratic voters is with women voters. She, like most Democrats, can't break into the overall Southern white male vote for love nor money.]
[UPDATE again: Now Kos bats her comments around like a beach ball, showing that she used opinion polls instead of voting booth results, which undercut her argument.]
As Donna Brazile said Tuesday night to Paul Begala, Campbell Brown et al, Obama wouldn't be winning any primaries if all he was getting were black votes. And it's not just that he's winning primaries, either: He and Hillary between them are bringing boatloads of Democratic voters to the primary table. Remember, fewer people vote in the primaries than in the generals, so what does it tell you when more Democratic voters voted in Indiana's 2008 primary than voted for John Kerry in the general election?
I kid thee not:
Over 1.25 million Indianans voted yesterday for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primary.
Over 1.1 million Indianans voted for Jill Long Thompson or Jim Schellinger in the Democratic primary for Governor of Indiana.
In 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry received 969,000 votes in the state of Indiana...in the general election. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joe Kernan received roughly 1.1 million votes, just shy of Schellinger and Long Thompson's combined votes in the 2008 primary.
The Democratic vote in the Indiana primary not only clearly outstrips Kerry's total from the general-which is remarkable in and of itself-but it is actually closer to Bush's vote total in Indiana than it is to Kerry's. Bush received 1.48 million votes in Indiana in 2004, 60% of the vote.
Looking at Indiana's 2004 primary vote totals, we have 317,211 for the Democrats and 469,528 for the Republicans. In 2008, we have 408,131 for the Republicans, a drop from 2004 -- and for the Democrats, a huge increase to 1,271,971. These sorts of massive voter turnouts have been occurring throughout the primary season -- and are benefitting the downticket races, too. It's why people like Newt Gingrich are extruding rectangular ceramic building materials out of their rectal openings when they contemplate the electoral asswhupping the GOP is about to get.
Scandal/Hoo-Ha Number Four: Rezko! But what about Rezko! The house! The strip of land! What about THAT?!?!
Yeah, what about Rezko?
Rezko has connections to lots of people in both parties, including Hillary herself (via John Burgess), Hillary national campaign co-chair Tony Villaraigosa, the mayor of Los Angeles, and most especially important for the general election, Karl Rove via his buddy Bob Kjellander.
Here's the deal: "Maverick Populist" John Sidney McCain III has to check with his owners in the Bush Junta before openly criticizing them in even the mildest of ways, and shining a light on Karl Rove and his role in the US Attorney firings scandal this way is not allowed. Besides, even if you took away the Rove-Kjellander connection making this like kryptonite for McCain, guess what? There's no 'there' there for Obama. When Patrick Fitzgerald, a prosecutor known for his thoroughness, issued the 78-page Rezko proffer, it was shot through with references to Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and his buddies, but the sole reference to Obama is a second-hand one, in a single paragraph on page 36: Seems Rezko asked an associate to donate $10,000 to Obama's campaign, then reimbursed him -- all done without Obama's apparent knowledge, much less consent. Big whoop. (That's right, kiddies: The Famous House Deal didn't rate investigating by Pat Fitz.)
There you have it.
Comments are closed on this story.