The Obama Phenomenon and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

[River]

**draws a chart up on a white board

Hillary bashing | Bush bashing
------------------------------------------------------------------------



I really hope both the Dem contenders can keep it to the high road. It's bad for everyone if they don't.

ETA: You know, according to CNN, only 22% of the CA precincnts have reported in as of 1 minute ago. I realize that Hillary and McCain have substantial leads in that 22%, but doesn't it seem a bit early to call it?

[Faramond]

Of course, I've been known to do a wee bit of Bush bashing myself. It's just that what I say is a love note compared with how most other people here feel about him.

[Primula Baggins]

Last week's debate left me hopeful. They got in some digs but both spent much more time pointing up their differences from the Republicans and the policies of the current administration. That is crucial; there are a lot of voters out there who want a chance to decisively reject those policies.

There, I didn't even say the B-word (the four-letter one).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Please stop with the personal jabs against other members. Expressing a negative opinion about one of the candidates is perfectly acceptable, so long as it is not done with rude language or language that is gender-pejorative or race-pejorative or the like. Making sarcastic digs at other members is not acceptable.

[Faramond]

Deleted --- something I almost never do, but there you go.

[Túrin Turambar]

I'm so pleased it wasn't a runaway for Obama, as people seemed to be talking about. Of all the candidates who spoke tonight, I thought Hillary was the best. I believe her to be sincere and compassionate, and I felt excited and moved by her speech; I totally reject all this Hillary hatred, and a sweep for Obama would have seemed like a win for that hatred to me. I'm glad this will go on, so that people will continue to have a chance to further assess all of the candidates.

An Obama sweep today was never a realistic outcome. Obama has done remarkably well to win eleven states – even yesterday he had poll leads in only about three. Driving home today, I was quite prepared to see that Clinton had won the nomination – it was quite possible.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Faramond, it wasn't at all directed at you.

[Primula Baggins]

Instead, by MSNBC's best guess anyway, they've divided the available delegates pretty much exactly in half. But in terms of spin and perception, that is a victory for Obama, who was so far nehind only a few weeks or months ago. And now we head into a more normal primary season, two or three states a week, a pace that's well suited to Obama's way with crowds.

I honestly don't know what's going to happen, but it certainly isn't over.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Instead, by MSNBC's best guess anyway, they've divided the available delegates pretty much exactly in half.

That's amazing, given that Clinton won most of the biggest states. I never would have thought that Obama would have been able to come close to splitting the available delegates without winning California. But this just confirms my believe that the most likely outcome will be that the elected delegates are going to be split so evenly that it will come down to the super-delegates. And I am very uncomfortable with that prospect.

[River]

So am I. If it comes down to super delegates, there will be a lot of deeply embittered voters out there. I personally would be irritated enough to burn things. Well, that's a bit extreme, but I'd definitely join the hue and cry. What's the point if the system is so blatantly rigged?

[Primula Baggins]

I would hope the superdelegates know this. If at convention time Obama is clearly ahead in national polls, with all the momentum behind him (neither of which has happened yet, but might), would the party really finesse things to give Hillary the nomination at the risk of losing the election?

What am I saying—we're Democrats. . . .

[Frelga]

For someone who swung for Obama pretty much at the last possible moment, I am surprisingly disappointed that he is not winning California.

I have very little problem with Clinton. I agree with Prim and Nel that she is being called a bitch (in soli's unfortunate metaphor) for the actions that would have a man labeled strong willed and assertive. As for "icy and calculating" - bring it on. We should be ready for a President who - translation - uses her brain and adapts her policies to the changing circumstances as opposed to listening to what "God" tells him to do and sticking to a disastrous course no matter what.

That, in fact, is my biggest concern with Obama. There is some evidence that he is good at fighting for what he believes in, working with his opponents to win them over and so on. That is all admirable. Now I want to see some evidence that he is capable of admitting that he had been wrong and listening to those who disagree with him. I'm not saying he isn't, I just want some proof.

All that said, Obama is miles ahead in sheer charisma. And, after listening to Clinton's speech tonight - a President should be able to express condolences to tornado victims without looking at her notes! As my son would say, seriously, dude!

[Túrin Turambar]

Instead, by MSNBC's best guess anyway, they've divided the available delegates pretty much exactly in half.

That's amazing, given that Clinton won most of the biggest states. I never would have thought that Obama would have been able to come close to splitting the available delegates without winning California. But this just confirms my believe that the most likely outcome will be that the elected delegates are going to be split so evenly that it will come down to the super-delegates. And I am very uncomfortable with that prospect.

As am I. I have very high hopes riding on Texas and Ohio.

[solicitr]

The superdelegate system was put in place after 1972 precisely for that reason- so as to keep the benighted voters from ever ever again picking another McGovern against the wishes of the party establishment..

A remarkable result yesterday in a couple of ways.

1) Super-duper Tsunami Tuesday was supposed to close down the contest in one fell swoop. Not true at all, especially on the Democratic side.

2) Obama fighting Hillary and the party machine to a draw is astounding given the situation mere weeks ago.

3) McCain, pronounced really most sincerely dead last summer: now the nomination is his to lose.

[Cerin]

But this just confirms my believe that the most likely outcome will be that the elected delegates are going to be split so evenly that it will come down to the super-delegates. And I am very uncomfortable with that prospect.

I would hope the superdelegates know this. If at convention time Obama is clearly ahead in national polls, with all the momentum behind him (neither of which has happened yet, but might), would the party really finesse things to give Hillary the nomination at the risk of losing the election?

Just a minute here. Aren't the super delegates people, too? Shouldn't they be able to cast their delegate vote for the candidate they want? So if the delegate count is tied apart from super delegates, naturally the super delegates are going to decide things if theirs are the only votes left to cast. What is wrong with that? It would be different if they had a disproportionate amount of pull, but they don't get more than one vote apiece, do they?

[WampusCat]

Now I'm beginning to wonder if even my state's primary, scheduled for May 6, might affect the results!

[Primula Baggins]

Ooh, we vote the same day, Wampus! Wouldn't it be something if that was the day that clinched it for a nominee?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Just a minute here. Aren't the super delegates people, too? Shouldn't they be able to cast their delegate vote for the candidate they want? So if the delegate count is tied apart from super delegates, naturally the super delegates are going to decide things if theirs are the only votes left to cast. What is wrong with that? It would be different if they had a disproportionate amount of pull, but they don't get more than one vote apiece, do they?

That's a tricky question, from my point of view, Cerin. The regular delegates don't get to choose which candidate to vote for at the convention; they reflect the choices of the voters that elected them at the primaries/caucuses. As solicitr points out, the super-delegate system was added as a backlash to McGovern's landslide defeat in 1972. But it reflects a very condescending attitude that the party professionals know better than the actual voters who the best candidate is, and that is what I think is going to create a backlash. Particularly if Obama actually ends up with more elected delegates than Clinton, but the super delegates put her over the top. But like Prim I suspect that that may not happen, particularly if it looks like Obama will be the stronger candidate in the national election.

Wampus, I would be very suprised if your primary does NOT affect the results.

[tinwë]

I’m disappointed that Obama didn’t do better, especially in California, but I am encouraged that he did as well as he did. Hopefully he can carry the momentum forward in the coming weeks.

I have to say that the closer it gets to general election the more dismayed I am by the prospect of a Clinton presidency. I have nothing against her personally, I don’t even fault her for her political maneuvering - she’s a politician doing what politicians do, which is whatever it takes to get results. I don’t think of her as a bitch, I don’t subscribe to the hatred that Cerin mentioned, in fact I have greatly admired Hillary for much of the time she has been in public life.

What I don’t like, what I am dismayed about, what I do in fact hate, is the prospect of having four more years of the same divisive politics that have plagued this country for the last sixteen years. Yes, I realize that electing Obama would not guarantee an end to that, I realize that there will always be some Republicans who will never accept a Democratic president, just as there will always be some Democrats who will never accept a Republican.

But at least with Obama there is some chance for something different, some possibility that this country could rise above the rancor that has plagued our public discourse for so long now. I don’t think there is any hope for that with Hillary. We know what we are going to get with her - more of the same. More of the divisiveness, more of the acrimony, more of the bitterness and hatred and constant sniping at each other that we have seen ...even here in this thread! The fact that it is not necessarily her fault that these things happen doesn’t make me feel any better about having her as president.

To be perfectly honest, part of me thinks the country would be better off with McCain in the office, and I say that despite the fact that I disagree with him on just about everything. I just think that he would do a better job of bringing the country together and ending the divisiveness. Mind you, I most likely will not vote for him, the issues mean to much to me, but that doesn’t change the way I feel.

Just wanted to solicit any thoughts on Barack vs. Hillary on universal health care. I found this opinion piece (also published by the Times, which has declared its bias, of course) interesting.

I have to agree with V here, dispite the fact that Hillary is technically right on the issue. It goes without saying that without requiring mandatory universal coverage you will not have universal coverage, and any system without universal coverage is fundamentally flawed. But I think the political reality is that mandating universal coverage is not something this country is going to go for at this time. From what I have heard of Clinton talking about this, she has an all or nothing attitude about it, and I’m afraid that would leave us with nothing.

Obama’s plan seems much more pragmatic. Make it possible for everybody who wants it to have it now, but make it mandatory for children. Yes, some people will not take it - I have read that there are 11 million people today who are eligible for government funded health care who do not sign up for it - but those children who grow up with it and come to expect it will be much more likely to take it when they become adults. It still may not be perfectly universal system, but it will be a vast improvement over what we have now. And it is politically possible too, imo.

Now I'm beginning to wonder if even my state's primary, scheduled for May 6, might affect the results!

That would be nice for a change, wouldn’t it?

Ooh, we vote the same day, Wampus! Wouldn't it be something if that was the day that clinched it for a nominee?

Aren’t yours May 20? Ours are May 6. So

[Cerin]

Particularly if Obama actually ends up with more elected delegates than Clinton, but the super delegates put her over the top.

In preparing a reply, I think I figured out the problem. The problem is that the super delegates were not chosen by the voters, is that correct? So each super delegate is really just representing their self and their interests, rather than having been chosen because they reflect the view of a certain number of voters? So as individuals, they are wielding personal power that the other delegates are not.

Given the unreliability of polls, how would you want the super delegates to make their decision in the case of a very close delegate count, apart from voting for the person they personally favor? Is it your view that the super delegates should (ethically speaking) cast their vote for the person ahead in delegates when the convention rolls around, even if ahead by a small amount, and even if no one has accumulated enough delegates for the nomination?