Obama Ready to Close the Deal
The Obama camp, expecting wins in Tuesday's Montana and South Dakota primaries, is preparing for their candidate's first major speech as presumptive Democratic nominee.
If all goes as expected this week, Barack Obama will go from being the Democratic presidential frontrunner to the presumptive nominee.
On Tuesday night, after likely wins in the Montana and South Dakota primaries, Obama holds a big rally in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he will speak from the very stage on which John McCain will give his Republican national convention acceptance speech in September.
The Clintons, who have dominated national Democratic politics since 1992, publicly lost control of what had been their party Saturday in Washington. There they made their long threatened move before the party’s rules committee to have delegations seated reflecting her “victories” in what her campaign and all the others had agreed beforehand were illegitimate primaries in Michigan and Florida.
Although Hillary Clinton had a plurality of backers on this committee, her move lost, with the clear majority of the committee siding with state party leaders from the states in question and Obama on a compromise that seats everyone, gives her an edge of 24 delegates from the two states, but moved Obama closer to the nomination.
There are some dark mutterings from the Clinton camp about appealing this to the party’s credentials committee. But on that committee, unlike the one that just handed the Clintons’ this defeat, the Obama campaign will actually have the edge going in.
Clinton did win the primary in Puerto Rico on Sunday, so the second half of a planned double-win going into the final week of the primaries and caucuses did come through. The Clintons’ insider machinations worked much better there. Bill Clinton, who pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists, is very popular in the Caribbean territory which has no votes in the general election. Helping the Clintons, PR party leaders changed Puerto Rico from a caucus to a primary. Why? Because the very last ditch argument for Hillary is that she has won the popular vote. Which talking point she arrives at by not counting the caucus states — which saw record turnouts — and then going on to count all her votes in the illegitimate Florida and Michigan primaries, and none for Obama in Michigan. (Where he wasn’t on the ballot, but where polls show he would have a slight lead over her today.)
It’s a non-serious argument, in any event. Clinton won her largest margin of popular vote victory in my state, California, where Obama, after closing in the polls, campaigned little in the face of Bill and Hillary making an all-out push in the state that President Clinton cultivated more than any other during his two terms in the White House. Obama went elsewhere during that crazy 23-state Super Tuesday to rack up some wins. Yet the Field Poll shows that Obama would defeat Clinton in California if the primary were held now, 51% to 38%. He also holds a huge lead over McCain.
So, back to reality.
Obama goes over the top with Montana and South Dakota and perhaps 20 more superdelegates. Then goes into what will be a more aggressive campaign mode against McCain and the Republicans than he’s displayed against Clinton, as you can tell from his decision to give his likely first speech as the presumptive Democratic nominee from the stage of the upcoming Republican convention.
Why aren’t the superdelegates bailing out Clinton? After all, the superdelegates were created to prevent an insurgent campaign from defending a powerful establishment choice. And Clinton was clearly the choice of the Democratic establishment going into this.
A few reasons, I think, why the superdelegates have broken heavily for Obama since he came from far behind in national polling to edge the Clintons ever so slightly in the coast-to-coast Super Tuesday contests of February 5th.
Obama has proved to be a much stronger candidate than most of them expected. He raises record-shattering amounts of money (via a new Internet paradigm that goes over the heads of traditional power brokers), draws huge crowds, is an excellent speaker, learns from mistakes, and has proved to be resilient in various crises.
Then, there are the well-known problems of the Clintons.
Before I wrote a thing about the 2008 presidential race, I seriously doubted Hillary Clinton could be elected president. Democratic leaders know her problems well. If they weren’t for her starting out, there was a reason. It was only when the consistent unpopularity of President Bush became apparent that I thought she could win.
But then new issues emerged, issues not played up by the media, and certainly not by Republicans, who by this point were out to try crack Obama and hope Hillary made it to the general election. Problems like the Clintons’ stonewalling over their amazing post-presidential wealth, their keeping secret over half a billion dollars in contributions to the Clinton Library (much apparently from Middle Eastern interests), and repeated misstatements about her experience. Even her past work for the Black Panthers law firm, undertaken as a young lawyer (a sore point for me, given that the Panthers murdered a family friend around the time she went to work for them) — something virtually unknown to the public — would be a general election problem.
Which is not to say that Obama does not have problems. He’s inexperienced, he’s exotic, he’s had some goofy friends. (Knowing Bill Ayers, incidentally, 40 years after his lunacy, is not the same as defending the guy when he was trying to blow up the Pentagon, to make Hillary’s problem of past radicalism clearer.)
Developer/fixer Tony Rezko? Probably not a problem. Obama’s name has barely surfaced in his corruption trial, despite fervent predictions on the hyperpartisan right. And John McCain, like many politicians, has problems of his own in that sort of area. The area being a zealous befriending financial supporter who gets caught. McCain, in fact, was criticized by the Senate Ethics Committee for questionable conduct with regard to his role with savings & loan scandal figure Charles Keating. (This was the scandal that ended the career of California’s Alan Cranston.)
Jeremiah Wright, as I wrote as soon as the controversy broke, is a significant problem for Obama, one he has not yet solved. Don’t expect a repeat of Wright’s National Press Club performance, however. He is under enormous peer pressure to do nothing more to scuttle the chances of the first black candidate with a real shot at the White House.
The white Catholic priest who mouthed off at Obama’s now former church about Hillary feeling “entitled” because she’s white? People are making a lot of hysterical statements on all sides in the heat of this campaign. And that’s before we get to two prominent — now, finally, former — clerical backers of John McCain, whose statements predate the campaign. One of whom, whose support McCain long sought, claimed that God caused Hitler to justifiably let loose the Holocaust in order to create the State of Israel.
McCain is the only Republican who can win in this electoral environment. He has the great credentials of a famous war hero, the great McCain family history in the Navy, the reputation of a maverick, and perhaps enough positioning away from that of the White House to overcome the Bush downdraft. He also, in this country in which a strong majority believes the Iraq War to have been a mistake — notwithstanding the relative success of the surge strategy — has the great talking point that the surge was in fact his idea. And that he is not responsible for many of the mistakes made for years in Iraq following the successful invasion of 2003.
Obama, Clinton, and John Edwards (especially before he moved farther left to try to retain relevance in the race) each would have beaten the other Republican candidates, though Clinton would have had some problems due to extreme baggage.
Rudy Giuliani started out very well, as I reported. But he didn’t improve much beyond his standard lecture, which he had delivered for very big money in the wake of 9/11. His Bernie Kerik problem, which I thought the McCain campaign would have to drive home or, failing that, the Democrats, brought his standing in the polls down faster than I expected. Fred Thompson is a nice guy, and a friend of this publication, but too conservative for the general election and, as his Tonight Show announcement made clear, not a very good candidate.
Mitt Romney was also too conservative for the general election, and had the added problem of having largely reinvented his politics in order to run for president. Mike Huckabee is a much better campaigner, and would have had a shot. But America is not going to elect a president who doesn’t believe in scientific evolution.
So we have a fascinating campaign ahead, between the best candidates in either party, notwithstanding their flaws. Obama also has to patch things up in his party, as McCain is continuing to do in his party. We’ll find out what the Clintons want, and what Obama and other Democratic leaders — let’s not forget that Obama has the backing of more of his Senate colleagues than does the former first lady — are willing to give them.
Bill Bradley is a Pajamas Media correspondent. His PajamasXpress blog is New West Notes.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
30 Comments
1. New West Notes » Monday Morning Quarterback:[...] You can see it all here on PJ Media. [...]
Jun 2, 2008 - 11:00 am 2. Xdpaul:Uh, what the heck is “scientific evolution?”
Considering that a majority of Americans don’t believe in form-transitional evolution (”scientific” or otherwise), I don’t think evolution is a Huckabee campaign-killer. I think money and recognition (both of which improved dramatically from zero over time) were far bigger factors.
Jun 2, 2008 - 11:09 am 3. Bill Bradley:OK, then, our first kill of the day.
A poster who does not believe in evolution.
Jun 2, 2008 - 11:20 am 4. Bill Bradley:… Incidentally, my non-evolutionary friend. Mac always had higher recognition and money than Huck.
>Xdpaul:
Uh, what the heck is “scientific evolution?”
Considering that a majority of Americans don’t believe in form-transitional evolution (”scientific” or otherwise), I don’t think evolution is a Huckabee campaign-killer. I think money and recognition (both of which improved dramatically from zero over time) were far bigger factors.
Jun 2, 2008 – 11:09 am
Jun 2, 2008 - 11:43 am 5. Bill Bradley:… Incidentally, scientific evolution, so you know, is the idea that the Earth, and the people on it, were not created in 6 days prior to God resting on the 7th day.
Let’s move on to more serious questions about the future of America and the planet on which we live, shall we?
Jun 2, 2008 - 11:58 am 6. retro:No need to be so condescending, Bill. mmmmkay?
Jun 2, 2008 - 1:14 pm 7. tinfoilhatter:So, Bill…
How exactly is Obama going to win the swing states in which he lost so significantly?
The truth of the matter is that right now, HRC is more competitive vis a vis JSM in FL, PA, OH, and MI. MO is a probably.
HRC can win FL. CA, NY, FL, WI, IL, PA, and OH and HRC wins. In other words, she has to essentially pick up two D leaning states (IL/WI) and two even states (PA/OH) and win.
But, BHO has to get significant white non-college turnout to win OH, PA, and MI. And, short of a dead girl or live boy in Senator McCain’s closet, he’s not going to win FL.
Jun 2, 2008 - 1:30 pm 8. Ed Wallis:As far as I understand the Democratic Party Superdelegates’ role (unlike delegates “bound” to vote for candidate A or B per voting pattern in respective states…), they are FREE TO INDEPENDENTLY DECIDE FOR WHOM THEY VOTE…AT THE CONVENTION.
For all the wishful thinking, neither Obama and Clinton have enough delegates – about a 100 delegate advantage for Obama (I believe 1,900 versus 1,800?…with “newly revised target” of 2,200 or so).
Talk remains TALK.
Sorry, Mr. Bwadley, we all will have to wait until August’s Democratic Party Convention (barring a Clinton withdrawl/concession), so pretty-up your tattered cheerleader skirt a little bit longer….
Jun 2, 2008 - 3:53 pm 9. Dave:“But America is not going to elect a president who doesn’t believe in scientific evolution.”
But, but…I thought Obama WAS a Christian!
Putting matters of faith aside (which evolution IS), Obama may be “closing the deal” with party members and bigwigs…but he his far, FAR away from “closing the deal” with the electorate, including those in his own party!
You rightly state, “Obama also has to patch things up in his party”, as if he has a chance of reaching those white working-class Dems in swing states he so desperately needs, not to mention Reagan democrats, independents and “moderates” who just don’t like Obama’s FAR-LEFT stance on virtually EVERYTHING!
Face it, Bill…Obama may have been the best “orator” out of the gate, and swamped the early caucuses and primaries with his “Change” and “Hope” mantra, but he is NOT the best candidate the Democratic Party could have offered. Almost ALL the baggage (much of which we have yet to hear about) came out on Obama AFTER Super-Tuesday, and he has lost EVERY big swing state since.
The Democrats let a candidate who was not fully vetted carry their party to certain defeat in November…
Oh, and as if it makes a hill of beans difference to ANYONE out there…”let’s not forget that Obama has the backing of more of his Senate colleagues..”
LOL!
Jun 2, 2008 - 4:24 pm 10. Will48:The main reason why he’s so likeable a persona on TV is he’s always shot from below, with no-one standing near him. It gives him appearance of a tall – grand – man.
Solution: put out a LOT of images of him shot from slightly above angle, looked down upon, angry and confused, standing next to tall sturdy guys (and, better yet, tall gals) – and he’s DONE.
It’s that simple. Subconscious suggestion works.
Someone with access, please pass this along up.
Jun 2, 2008 - 6:59 pm 11. Bill Bradley:On the evidence of the post, I am being quite nice in dealing with a tin foil character …
>retro:
No need to be so condescending, Bill. mmmmkay?
Jun 2, 2008 - 7:11 pm 12. Bill Bradley:Jun 2, 2008 – 1:14 pm
You’re attempting to waste my time.
In the future, I will explain why a candidate who is not linked to one of the most unpopular presidents in history can actually win.
>tinfoilhatter:
So, Bill…
How exactly is Obama going to win the swing states in which he lost so significantly?
The truth of the matter is that right now, HRC is more competitive vis a vis JSM in FL, PA, OH, and MI. MO is a probably.
HRC can win FL. CA, NY, FL, WI, IL, PA, and OH and HRC wins. In other words, she has to essentially pick up two D leaning states (IL/WI) and two even states (PA/OH) and win.
But, BHO has to get significant white non-college turnout to win OH, PA, and MI. And, short of a dead girl or live boy in Senator McCain’s closet, he’s not going to win FL.
Jun 2, 2008 - 7:13 pm 13. Bill Bradley:Jun 2, 2008 – 1:30 pm
You know, you are simply a far right crank who pretends interest in a woman you obviously hate.
You don’t know the first thing about the party you wasted your time writing about. Your “facts” are wildly wrong, and I’m out of time for your nonsense …
>Ed Wallis:
As far as I understand the Democratic Party Superdelegates’ role (unlike delegates “bound” to vote for candidate A or B per voting pattern in respective states…), they are FREE TO INDEPENDENTLY DECIDE FOR WHOM THEY VOTE…AT THE CONVENTION.
For all the wishful thinking, neither Obama and Clinton have enough delegates – about a 100 delegate advantage for Obama (I believe 1,900 versus 1,800?…with “newly revised target” of 2,200 or so).
Talk remains TALK.
Sorry, Mr. Bwadley, we all will have to wait until August’s Democratic Party Convention (barring a Clinton withdrawl/concession), so pretty-up your tattered cheerleader skirt a little bit longer….
Jun 2, 2008 - 7:15 pm 14. Bill Bradley:Jun 2, 2008 – 3:53 pm
Oh My God.
You are another of those people who thinks that in order to belive in God, you have to believe that evolution is a fraud.
Well, ya know, I don’t have any more time for your stuff.
Take it to my old friend Hugh Hewitt.
>Dave:
“But America is not going to elect a president who doesn’t believe in scientific evolution.”
But, but…I thought Obama WAS a Christian!
Jun 2, 2008 - 7:17 pm 15. Sembo:The black whip is going for B. Huessin Obama? I wonder why?
Jun 2, 2008 - 8:10 pm 16. George Clarke:Science is something you can duplicate in the laboratory and measure, and achieve the same result every time. Which scientest duplicated form transitional evolution in the laboratory. Darwin did not so it is not scientific evolution. It is a theory, based on alot of scientific evidence. On the other side, divine intervention may well be true, but being supernatural it is not science. Because we can certainly breed dogs, horses and peas for particular characteristics, over dozens of generations, does not mean the elephant is related in kinship to the ameoba. Maybe it is, but alas there is so much we don’t know. All theories at this point are at least viable if not equal (and not necessarily exclusionary of the alternatives) so I do not believe any candidates adherence to any genesis tale is a political deal breaker.
Jun 2, 2008 - 8:38 pm 17. Steve Jones:Since Hillary Clinton first came to prominence in the public arena her actions have been like a thorn in the side of the struggle for a healthy society.
For a start she has ideas above her station in life. A spouse of a politician does not give them a right to act like someone elected any more than someone married to a surgeon allows them to operate on patients.
She continues to blow the issue of gender and sexism out of all proportions. She has played the gender card constantly and is much more the woman candidate rather than the candidate that happens to be a woman.
For a start the US Establishment has no difficulties with the idea of a woman president. If Margaret Thatcher was an American citizen an 20 years younger she would be snapped up by parties. She was a successful prime minister in the UK- a country similar to the US in many ways. She earned the respect of men and women alike. If someone similar to her in America ran for presidency she would probably pick up all the Republican votes plus the so called Regan Democrats. So this nails the falsehood that a woman in a high position would not be acceptable in America.
The scarce remains of a patriarchal society are hardly the uppermost problems of the West. While there was a case for examining the circumstances of women decades ago nowadays is this not more of an issue for third world countries where girls could be banned from school or where a woman might be stoned or have to walk 10 miles for water?
As a man I’m at pains to point out that I have nothing against women and they are obviously as valuable an asset in a country as men are. However some of the claims of feminists need to be challenged and some of their attempts at social engineering need to be exposed.
You never seem to hear the end of it from feminists when men happen to be paid a small bit more than women and yet there isn’t a peep out of them when it is revealed that women in their twenties now earn more than men in Westernized areas. Also you have a situation where males are lagging well behind females in the education system. Families are in a very vulnerable position nowadays. The odds seem to be stacked against any woman who wishes to make more of a commitment in the home. Even simply to makes ends meet there is pressure on both parents to be in work as much as possible. This leads to antisocial behaviour in people and difficulties in raising children properly. Also abortion seems to be used as a contraceptive in industrialized countries. The full relationship between men and women where the two sexes are equal but different complement each is not given a chance to flower. Generally speaking in Western countries the birth rates are very small which will not be sustainable in the long term as the populations will become more aged and there will be a greater burden on pension schemes and healthcare. In the US we have to thank groups robustly defending traditional values that American birth rates are not as low as in many European countries say.
Someone who has for years fought tooth and nail to give feminists a blank cheque from society at the expense of traditional values is hardly someone of presidential material who will unite all the American people. This is someone on the fringes of the political spectrum rather than someone fighting an election from the centre. Is this not akin to Michael Moore running for the presidency and making all the right noises in the Southern states about defending America from terrorists and upholding morals.
Jun 2, 2008 - 10:00 pm 18. poet1b:Why should Hillary concede. The super delegates have until the convention to make up their minds, and with the contest so even, that is exactly what they should do. Obama’s numbers are dropping, and after carrying the role of the presumptive nominee, they might find that Obama isn’t capable of carrying the role, so they should wait until August for the final decision.
Jun 3, 2008 - 12:23 am 19. Ed Wallis:Bill Bradley: “You know, you are simply a far right crank who pretends interest in a woman you obviously hate. You don’t know the first thing about the party you wasted your time writing about. Your “facts” are wildly wrong, and I’m out of time for your nonsense …”
This prattling is scary enough on its own…but coming from a PJM writer?
When will PJM get some mature authors who, when responding, can apply reason instead of insults?!
Particularly, as all I wrote was akin to “poet1b” above: “As far as I understand the Democratic Party Superdelegates’ role (unlike delegates “bound” to vote for candidate A or B per voting pattern in respective states…), they are FREE TO INDEPENDENTLY DECIDE FOR WHOM THEY VOTE…AT THE CONVENTION. For all the wishful thinking, neither Obama and Clinton have enough delegates – about a 100 delegate advantage for Obama (I believe 1,900 versus 1,800?…with “newly revised target” of 2,200 or so).”
Jun 3, 2008 - 7:22 am 20. Bill Bradley:Your “facts” are, once again, WILDLY wrong. From top to bottom.
Jun 3, 2008 - 7:39 am 21. Bill Bradley:Sembo? Not Sambo? Very clever …
>Sembo:
The black whip is going for B. Huessin Obama? I wonder why?
Jun 3, 2008 - 7:40 am 22. Bill Bradley:Jun 2, 2008 – 8:10 pm
Well, you’re going to be disappointed, I’m afraid.
>poet1b:
Why should Hillary concede. The super delegates have until the convention to make up their minds, and with the contest so even, that is exactly what they should do. Obama’s numbers are dropping, and after carrying the role of the presumptive nominee, they might find that Obama isn’t capable of carrying the role, so they should wait until August for the final decision.
Jun 3, 2008 - 7:40 am 23. Ed Wallis:Jun 3, 2008 – 12:23 am
Of interest to readers (no, no, Mr. Bradley, it’s likely too advanced for liberal trolls…):
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/the_clintonobama_battle_contin_1.html
Jun 3, 2008 - 7:42 am 24. Bill Bradley:While you may believe that God did it all in 6 days, I can tell you that the American electorate is not going select someone with those views as the President of the United States.
Not in this century, at least.
>George Clarke:
Science is something you can duplicate in the laboratory and measure, and achieve the same result every time. Which scientest duplicated form transitional evolution in the laboratory. Darwin did not so it is not scientific evolution. It is a theory, based on alot of scientific evidence. On the other side, divine intervention may well be true, but being supernatural it is not science. Because we can certainly breed dogs, horses and peas for particular characteristics, over dozens of generations, does not mean the elephant is related in kinship to the ameoba. Maybe it is, but alas there is so much we don’t know. All theories at this point are at least viable if not equal (and not necessarily exclusionary of the alternatives) so I do not believe any candidates adherence to any genesis tale is a political deal breaker.
Jun 3, 2008 - 7:42 am 25. Dan from Milwaukee:Jun 2, 2008 – 8:38 pm
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Jun 3, 2008 - 8:45 am 26. Pajamas Media » PJM Special Coverage — Montana, South Dakota:Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her divorce with former President Bill Clinton after she realized she can’t use him anymore!!!
[...] comes with a lot of baggage, as I discussed in yesterday’s column. And a very willful husband in the form of former President Bill, who just had to apologize for his [...]
Jun 3, 2008 - 1:40 pm 27. Bill Bradley:You know, sport, let me put this as diplomatically as possible. You have not the slightest clue of what you are talking about.
You just linked to a nitwith post that is totally divorced from reality.
As I told you, Hillary Clinton is out of the campaign.
She has endorsed Obama.
The vaunted Clinton fundraising machine is integrating with the Obama machine.
Now, is Obama the best candidate?
I’m worried he’s not experienced enough.
I say this as a member of Veterans for McCain in 2000.
But enough time wasted on a wingnut stalker.
>Ed Wallis:
Of interest to readers (no, no, Mr. Bradley, it’s likely too advanced for liberal trolls…):
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/the_clintonobama_battle_contin_1.html
Jun 5, 2008 - 1:01 pm 28. Bill Bradley:Jun 3, 2008 – 7:42 am
Incidentally, child Ed, this is my column. You are the troll. Hasta la bye bye.
Jun 5, 2008 - 1:03 pm 29. Ed Wallis:CHEERLEADER BWILL BWADLEY:
The American Thinker website is one of the more erudite spots to read online.
That you so desperately attempt to – hah! let’s be generous here – “argue” that it is NOT and that the information there is either invalid or of no merit only shows your inability to reason.
POOR BWILL: “…this is my column.”
I, sir, am no troll.
YOU, SIR, ARE NO JOURNALIST, IMHO. Perhaps your efforts would be better suited to “Kos”-sack or your local soup kitchen.
Jun 5, 2008 - 8:10 pm 30. BDevil38:Does the Hillary Camp Have a Plan?
I want to be the Devil’s Advocate here. All of this talk about pledged delegates, Super Delegates, half-vote delegates, etc. means NOTHING until the votes are cast on the convention floor. Hillary DID NOT relinquish her delegates to Obama, which wouldn’t really make much difference because the delegates are only obligated by “promises” and ethics (a lacking quality in politicians) – nothing more.
As we know, several bombshells have exploded around Obama in the past months. The Rev. Wright, Michelle’s new found “pride” to be an American, Father Pfleger, his connection with Rezko, his resignation from the church (20 years too late???), quotes from his published books, and the list goes on. The mainstream media has managed to sweep all of this under the carpet. Pooh-poohing or ignoring much of it as “irrelevant”, out of context, “not the way he REALLY thinks”, etc. What do we really, REALLY know about Obama, other than he has been recognized, without question, as the MOST liberal person in the Senate?
So, let me paint my hypothetical picture. One or more HUGE bombshells are going to be dropped just before the convention that will make the previous ones seem like firecrackers, and the Super Delegates will run from Obama like rats from a sinking ship. (Hmmm? Rats seems an appropriate comparative term.) Does anyone really think that the Clintons are going to give up so easily? Especially, Slick Willie. He hates to lose.
Anyway, as I said, this is a hypothetical picture, but . . .
Jun 17, 2008 - 6:15 am