Florida: Is Obama Not a Leader or Not Confident of Winning, or Both?

Photo credits: Getty

Note:

Count Every Vote Rally in DC: May 31st, 2008
Questions or suggestions? Email counteveryvote08@gmail.com

“You are going to count us now or don’t count on us later.”
-- Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), May 2008


Riverdaughter concludes her post on the Florida issue by asking is Obama not a leader, not confident of winning or both. And from the get go, she builds a good case:

“It’s easy to do the right thing and be on the correct side of the issue in this case even if you don’t stand to gain anything from it. The punishment was unusually harsh, the voters had nothing to do with it and the Democrats really need them in November. But more than that, it’s just a good thing to count every vote, let Floridians have some weight in determining the nomination and to respect their intentions, which were fairly clear. If it turns out that Florida’s votes when added to the mix do not sway superdelegates to vote for Clinton, well, at least they tried. But if they are never counted at all and Obama wins, then Floridians will be left with a mystery. Could counting all of their votes have lead to a different outcome? Deja vu. Not a good feeling when you thought you’d been pre-disastered. What’s worse is that it is at the hands of the ‘good’ party this time. Who can you trust?”

Who can you trust, indeed?

“Obama made a decision a couple of months ago to not waive the rules and to obstruct revotes. Florida Democrats filed a petition to get at least half the delegation seated. A couple of months ago would have been an optimal time to settle the matter. Obama could have been magnanimous and agreed to seat all of the delegates and take a small hit to his delegate count. Or he could have taken the Florida Democrat’s compromise of half delegate seating. He chose not to do either. Now, I don’t think any solution he proposed short of seating all of them would be acceptable to Floridians.”

Read More:

So, Sweetie, Since When Do People Demand That the Winner Quit?

Photo credits: Getty

Susan Estrich nails it over at RealClearPolitics this morning with her post titled “The Year of the 'Sweetie?”

Estrich begins with some background before hammering Obama, et al, for the rampant sexism in the Democratic race, reinforced and amplified by the good old boys network in the media:

‘“Have we gone from the ‘Year of the Woman’ to the ‘Year of the Sweetie’?

‘“So it appears. It's not the ‘sweetie’ part that gets me, and I suspect a lot of other women. It's the concern that, not to sound trite, some of the guys out there, maybe including the probable Democratic nominee for President, just don't ‘get it.’”

“If you can remember that far back, this was supposed to be another one of those ‘Year of the Woman’ elections, the first time a woman was entering the race as the frontrunner for her party's nomination, with the big question being whether women would see this as the historic occasion it was and abandon their concerns about whether Hillary should've dumped Bill over Monica and whether it was her ambition that kept them together. Hillary's problems with women, going back to the ‘stand by her man’ comment and her lack of interest in baking chocolate chip cookies, have been discussed literally for decades. During her first Senate race, it took her months of listening, the patronizing sexism of her opponent in their one and only debate, and a particularly effective ad by a breast cancer survivor reminding women that Hillary would be there for them on the issues that matter, before women moved to support her in major numbers and handed her a substantial majority of the votes. So there was some doubt, this time, about whether women would support one of their own or, maybe more fundamentally, see Hillary Rodham Clinton that way.

‘“They have. Women ‘saved’ Hillary in New Hampshire, or at least that's what all the talkers said that night, when to their great surprise, Hillary easily defeated Obama after her much-discussed "tearing up" in a roundtable on the day before the election in a New Hampshire diner. And they have been with her in every major contest since, especially white and Hispanic women. And not just elite, well-educated professional women, the black suit girls like herself (and yours truly) who could so easily recognize in so much of the sexism displayed towards Hillary by the media and the mavens the forces we have all confronted in our pursuit of our dreams. No, working women of every stripe, mothers and grandmothers, single and married, are the reason that Obama's near unanimous backing by African-Americans and his success among elites in low-turnout caucuses has not been enough to allow him to clinch the nomination, at least not yet.”

Estrich recaps the “Sweetie” incident:

“In case you missed the latest, Senator Obama responded to a Detroit reporter asking him a question about his plans for economically depressed Michigan workers by dismissing her as ‘Sweetie.’

‘“Senator, asked Peggy Agar, ‘how are you going to help the American autoworkers?”’

‘“Hold on a second, sweetie. We'll hold a press avail,’ Obama replied, putting her off until a later press conference.

‘“That's a bad habit of mine," Obama said in a voicemail message he left for the reporter some hours later. ‘I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front.’

“It was not Senator Obama's first public ‘sweetie.’ Earlier in the campaign, Obama said to a woman, ‘Sweetie, if I start with a picture I will never get out of here.’ And: ‘Sweetie if I start doing autographs I just won't be ... I am really late.’

“Agar, reached for comment later, said she'd been called worse things. Who hasn't? It's no big deal. I call people ‘sweetie’ myself, although I usually reserve it for people I know.

Estrich explains:

“If there were no wounds to be rubbing salt into, it wouldn't matter. But there are. And Senator Obama and his supporters need to understand that.

“For many women, Hillary Clinton was not just another candidate, and the fact that this campaign has been drenched in sexism has only made that identification stronger. Watching Hillary take a beating and come back, watching mostly (but not entirely) male reporters and pundits demean and dismiss her, question her motives, her appearance and her sexual orientation, has brought home for many women not how far we've come, but how far we have to go. Seeing the vigor with which some, starting with the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America, pounced on Clinton's victory in West Virginia to try to push her off the stage (since when do people demand that the winner quit?), has produced far more anger and resentment among women than Obama's reference to Ms. Agar as ‘sweetie.’ There is nothing sweet about the way Hillary has been covered in this campaign, about the way she has been attacked, about the meanness and mean-spiritedness that has been in evidence from the beginning. If women didn't understand why we need a woman President when we started this march, a good many of them surely do now.

“Will these women ultimately vote for Barack Obama? Maybe. The ‘gender gap,’ much discussed in every election cycle in the last three decades, is the shorthand version of much longer analysis of why it is that women are more likely to vote Democratic than men; while women are hardly a voting bloc, the fact that we earn less than men, live longer, and worry more about domestic issues all play some role in making us more likely to end up in the Democratic column. If Obama is to win, he needs the votes of women, sweeties or not. It should not be taken for granted. Or rather, we shouldn't.

Hillary Clinton: a Magnanimous Woman of Great Personal Integrity

Photo credits: CNN



An article about Hillary Clinton at CNN.Com today reveals a magnanimous woman of great personal integrity:

“Hillary Clinton on Wednesday reiterated her vow to stay in the Democratic presidential race, but she said it would be a ‘terrible mistake’ for her supporters to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama.

‘“Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain,’ Clinton said on CNN's ‘The Situation Room.’

‘“I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is -- obviously I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama.’

“Exit polls out of West Virginia indicate only 36 percent of Clinton's supporters would vote for Obama if he were the nominee. A bare majority of Obama's voters said they would vote for Clinton over McCain.

“Clinton on Tuesday trounced Obama, carrying West Virginia by at 41-point margin. Because she trails Obama in pledged delegates, superdelegates and in the popular vote, she's faced calls to drop out of the race.

“Despite her campaign being more than $20 million in the red, Clinton confirmed she plans to keep going.

‘"I'm not going anywhere except to Kentucky and Oregon and Montana and South Dakota and Puerto Rico,’ she said. Watch what Clinton says about the road ahead »

“Those five contests round out the primary season, which ends June 3.

“Kentucky and Oregon hold primaries next Tuesday. Clinton expected to do well in Kentucky, while Obama is the favorite to carry Oregon.”

Read More

Peter Daou Shatters Myths from the Obama Camp

Wow! Over at HuffingtonPost this morning, Peter Daou is breathtaking as myth buster. Daou shatters three major myths about the Democratic race. First off he nails the Obama camp with the same charges I’ve been repeating endlessly for weeks now:

“MYTH: Barack Obama is running a positive campaign that will unite Americans.

“FACT: Barack Obama and his advisers have conducted a divisive "full assault" on Hillary's character.”

Daou explains:

“While talking a lot about the politics of hope, change and unity, Sen. Obama and his campaign have been conducting a relentless and singularly personal assault on Hillary's character. They have blanketed big states with false negative mailers and radio ads and have described Hillary and her campaign as ‘disingenuous,’ ‘divisive,’ ‘untruthful,’ ‘dishonest,’ ‘polarizing,’ ‘calculating,’ ‘saying whatever it takes to win,’ ‘attempting to deceive the American people,’ ‘one of the most secretive in America,’ ‘deliberately misleading,’ ‘literally willing to do anything to win,’ and ‘playing politics with war.’

“This ‘full assault’ on Hillary's integrity and character has reached a new peak since Hillary's victories on March 4th. One of Sen. Obama's top surrogates equated President Clinton with Joe McCarthy; another called Hillary a ‘monster;’ and his campaign manager held an angry conference call claiming that Hillary is ‘deeply flawed’ and has ‘character issues.’ That's neither unifying nor hopeful. If Sen. Obama really is the prohibitive favorite some say he is, these negative attacks make absolutely no sense. Why would a frontrunner seek to attack and divide? If Sen. Obama can't unify Democrats in a primary, how can he unify Americans in a general election?”

Allow me to repeat Daou’s question: “If Sen. Obama can't unify Democrats in a primary, how can he unify Americans in a general election?”

In the second myth, despite what all the pundits are saying – Howard Kurtz’s column in yesterday’s WaPo was titled: “Hillary’s Last Rites?” – Daou shatters this one as effectively as he did the first:

“MYTH: The delegate ‘math’ works decisively against Hillary.”

“FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.”

Daou explains:

“‘The Math’ is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, NEITHER candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination. And EITHER candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable. No amount of editorials, articles, blog posts, charts, graphs, calculations, formulas, or projections will change the basic fact that either candidate can win. Pundits who confidently proclaim that Hillary has no hope of winning because of ‘the math,’ have counted Hillary out of this race three times before. Each time they based their sober assessments on 'facts' and 'realities' -- and each time they were wrong.

“In a campaign with dozens of unexpected twists and turns, bold prognostications should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Look no further than Sen. Obama's ‘full assault’ on Hillary's character to judge whether he thinks this election is over. The fact is this: Hillary and Sen. Obama are locked in a very close, hard-fought campaign and Hillary is demonstrating precisely the strength of character required of a president. Her resilience in the face of adversity, her faith in the voters, her capacity to rise to every challenge, are part of the reason she is the best general election candidate for Democrats. And it is why she is increasingly strong against John McCain in the polls at the same time that Sen. Obama is dropping against Sen. McCain.”

Finally, Daou shatters the myth about the superdelegates:

“MYTH: For Hillary to win, super delegates must ‘overturn the will of the people.’

“FACT: The race is virtually tied, the ‘will of the people’ is split, and both candidates need super delegates to win.”

Hint: As Daou explains, the election is not over yet:

“The Obama campaign and Sen. Obama's surrogates have engaged in a sustained public relations effort to convince people that the election is over and that if super delegates perform their established role of choosing a candidate who they believe will make the best nominee and president, they are somehow ‘overturning the will of the people.’ They have the audacity to make this argument while quietly and systematically courting those very same super delegates. They are courting them because they know that Sen. Obama needs super delegates to win. The Obama spin is being parroted daily by pundits, but it is patently false. The race is virtually tied; the ‘will of the people’ is split. By virtually every measure, Hillary and Sen. Obama are neck and neck -- separated by less than 130 of the more than 3,100 delegates committed thus far and less than 1% of the 27 million+ votes cast, including Florida and Michigan. Less than 1%.
“An incremental advantage for one candidate or the other is hardly a reason for super delegates to change the rules mid-game. Despite the Obama campaign's aggressive spin and pressure, the RULES require super delegates to exercise their best independent judgment, and that is what they will do. Even Sen. Obama's top strategist agrees they should. If not, then why don't prominent Obama endorsers like Senators Kerry (MA) and Kennedy (MA), and Governors Patrick (MA), Napolitano (AZ) and Richardson (NM) follow the will of their constituents and switch their support to Hillary? After all, she won their states. And if this is truly about the ‘will of the people,’ then Sen. Obama's short-sighted tactic to run out the clock on a revote in Florida and Michigan accomplishes exactly two things: it disenfranchises Florida and Michigan's voters; and it hurts Democrats in a general election. Apparently, for the Obama campaign, the ‘will of the people’ is just words.”

Note: Peter Daou is the Clinton Campaign’s Internet Director.