The New York Times (tomorrow's paper, available now) has a 7 page profile on how Barack Obama forged coalitions in Illinois:

The secret of his transformation — which has brought him to the brink of claiming the Democratic presidential nomination — can be described as the politics of maximum unity: He moved from his leftist Hyde Park base to more centrist circles; he forged early alliances with the good-government reform crowd only to be later embraced by the city’s all-powerful Democratic bosses; he railed against pork-barrel politics but engaged in it when needed; and he empathized with the views of his Palestinian friends before adroitly courting the city’s politically potent Jewish community.

To broaden his appeal to African-Americans, Mr. Obama had to assiduously court older black leaders entrenched in Chicago’s ward politics before selling himself as a young, multicultural bridge to the wider political world.

I have no use for the kind of unity that trumps taking a position on issues based on one's beliefs in favor of a taking a position based on who it will appeal to and then not sticking to it.

This is why it's so hard to figure out where Obama really stands on issues, from crime issues (here and here) to gun rights. He changes, depending on his audience and which voters he needs to appease or win over at the time. As I often write, where's Obama? Here, there and everywhere.

More from the Times:

Plutonium Page reports on this:

A $2 million program funded with little debate by the Legislature last month calls for using state money to fund an "academic based" conference that highlights contrarian scientific research on global warming. Legislators hope to undermine the public perception of a widespread consensus among polar bear researchers that warming global temperatures and melting Arctic ice threaten the polar bears' survival.

. . . Legislative leaders said they are frustrated that researchers skeptical of the doomsday scenario get marginalized as crackpots or industry shills by the media and scientific agencies. "We want to have the money to hire scientists to answer the Interior (Department) scientists," House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, said last week.

(Emphasis supplied.) So the way to avoid having people labelled shills is to buy the research you want? Not only is this outrageous use of government funds, it is monumentally stupid. Who is going to believe any findings from scientists funded like this?

BTD referenced MyDD's post by Jerome on West Virginia earlier. I have more to say about it. I want to highlight his lead-in:

I'd humbly suggest, to all the Obama supporters that join us here on this blog, that if you can't stand the heat of the West Virginia primary, you stay out of the kitchen. While I'm at it, I also suggest that you refrain from accusations against West Virginians as being racist, or you'll join the other 6 previous users here, whose offensive comments were deleted on Friday, and that were themselves banned from the site. ...You don't like that? Fine, its a big wide blogosphere, go find a blog that has its head in the sand. Are the ground rules understood?

CNN just flashed a poll showing Hillary ahead with 66% of the vote. It said a big W. VA win will show that "a lot of Democrats aren't ready to get on Obama's bandwagon."

CNN says W.Va. used to be solidly Democratic until 2000 when George Bush took it. Social issues are big there. Guns are even bigger. The LA Times also says W. Va could spell trouble for Obama in November.[More...]

First it was Ted Kennedy. Now we hear it is Michelle Obama:

Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama. The Democratic front-runner's wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party's nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.

If this type of petty nonsense is holding sway in the Obama camp, Obama will lose in November. It is one thing to hear this ridiculous nonsense from absurd and unimportant bloggers. It is another thing to hear it from the Obama camp. I hope someone with more maturity reins in this juvenile, divisive and destructive behavior from the Obama camp. I am heartily disgusted. They seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed

In a distant blogging past, a lot of us, people like Tom Schaller and me, argued that in the short term, the South was not favorable terrain for expanding the electoral map for Democrats. That the favorable terrain lay in Lincoln's 1860 map - the North and the West.

I believe in a long term 50 state strategy but it is foolish to think it can make sense in this Presidential election. We are basically stuck with the Gore and Kerry maps and need to look how we hold those states and where we can add the necessary electoral votes to win the Presidency. I have outlined Obama's problems with that map and the risk we run in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But Obama can change the map in the West. In Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Montana. And this data from Oregon gives us some indication - Obama leads McCain by 14:

Via MYDD, this WV poll says Clinton by 38:

56% of those surveyed indicate they will vote for Clinton compared to 18% for Obama. There are 26% undecided voters, according to the poll of 403 voters by Mark Blankenship Enterprises. Compared to a previous MBE poll in February, Clinton is up 13%, while Obama's numbers haven't changed.

In terms of the GE, Obama appears to have no chance in West Virginia while Clinton could likely win it:

LATimes:

Although Democrats are tangled in a fractious primary contest, both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama probably would win the White House against presumptive GOP nominee John McCain if the election were held now, according to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.

Arizona Sen. McCain remains competitive, but the poll identified one important vulnerability: Voters ranked him lowest among the three candidates on who could best handle the nation's economy -- by far the most pressing concern for the public irrespective of party, gender or income. Of the three main candidates, New York Sen. Clinton inspired the most confidence on the economy. In a hypothetical matchup, the poll gave Illinois Sen. Obama 46% to McCain's 40%, with 9% undecided. Clinton led McCain 47% to 38%, with 11% undecided.

By Big Tent Democrat

Barack Obama's coalition of young voters, African Americans, and higher income white voters is apparently good enough to win the Democratic nomination. But will it win in November? Andrew Kohut discusses Obama's electoral deficiencies with older voters against John McCain:

Interestingly, older voters — many of whom supported Democrats over the years — seem reluctant to support Mr. Obama. Hillary Clinton has carried the vote of people over 65 in 26 primary elections. And looking forward to the general election, the national polls now show John McCain running better against Mr. Obama among this older age group — as well as among middle-aged voters and younger voters.

Furthermore, while Barack Obama’s appeal to young people coincides with their greater inclination to support Democrats, older voters do not show a greater allegiance to the Republican party that might explain their current voting intentions.

What Kohut is saying here is that it is not a question of older voters having more affinity for Republicans and John McCain. They seem not to like Barack Obama and his Movement. In many ways, that is not surprising. That triumphalism of the young voter, the seeming desire to sweep out the old could be taken personally by older voters. This may be a difficult needle for Obama to thread. More . . .

An informal Middle East advsior to Barack Obama quit the campaign yesterday as the advisor's ties to Hamas were about to become more publicized.

Rob Malley said he wanted to stop being a distraction for the campaign after facing attacks from the blogosphere for months for allegedly being anti-Israel, a charge he denies.

...Malley's departure comes at a sensitive time for Obama, who appears to be nearing the Democratic nomination but has struggled to win the support of Jewish and pro-Israel voters. Hamas, which won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, refuses to recognize Israel and is dedicated to its destruction.

Malley interviewed Hamas, Palestinian and Israeli officials as part of his job...."To do my job, I have to meet with savory and unsavory people," he said. But Malley said that after he fielded a call this morning from the Times of London, which asked about the Hamas meetings, he decided he had had enough. "

The Obama campaign responded:

"Mr. Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor. "He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future."

More from the U.K. Times here.

From tomorrow's Christian Science Monitor: Hillary Campaign Advisors Wolfson and Garin say it's not that Obama can't win in November, it's that the data shows Hillary has a better chance:

At the top of the ballot, current state polling data show that Clinton would defeat Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, by 42 electoral votes, while the same polls show Obama losing to Senator McCain by 8 electoral votes, they said.

The Clinton strategists also came armed with charts looking at 20 House districts where freshmen Democrats won but which also voted for George Bush in 2004. Clinton defeated Obama in 16 of those 20 districts. Their argument: Clinton would help vulnerable House members more than Obama. Asked about the breakdown of endorsements from those 16 freshmen, Wolfson said that five had so far backed her and four, Obama.

As for how long she's staying in :[More]

By special request, here's another open thread.

I'm working on my outline for the NORML Aspen Legal Seminar which is due Tuesday. My topic this year: Crackadoodledoo! A New Dawn in Crack Cocaine Sentencing

I'll be back later to see how you are all doing.

Rasmussen polling says Hillary can't win, they are going to stop polling her and poll only Obama and McCain.

With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Barring something totally unforeseen, that is the choice American voters will have before them in November. While we have not firmly decided upon a final day for tracking the Democratic race, it is coming soon.

Today's Numbers: Hillary 48% to McCain 43%. Obama 47% to McCain 44%.

West VA: Hillary 56, Obama 27.

Gallup Daily: "Obama not pulling away yet". Dates polled, May 6 to May 8, 2/3 of whom were polled after Tuesday's election results were known. Obama 48, Hillary 46.

Gallup says "Obama remains in a statistical dead heat with Clinton for the 16th consecutive day."