Big Tent Democrat wrote about this earlier, but I want to add my thoughts. Paul Krugman's column today, Thinking About November, is excellent. If Obama is the nominee, he says there are a lot of reasons Democrats should sail to an presidential win November. Then he says there is one stumbling block and opines it's a big one:

the fight for the nomination has divided the party along class and race lines in a way that I believe is unprecedented, at least in modern times. Ironically, much of Mr. Obama’s initial appeal was the hope that he could transcend these divisions. At first, voting patterns seemed consistent with this hope. In February, for example, he received the support of half of Virginia’s white voters as well as that of a huge majority of African-Americans.

But this week, Mr. Obama, while continuing to win huge African-American majorities, lost North Carolina whites by 23 points, Indiana whites by 22 points. Mr. Obama’s white support continues to be concentrated among the highly educated; there was little in Tuesday’s results to suggest that his problems with working-class whites have significantly diminished.

In other words, [More...]

I am a big fan of Ted Kennedy but he does the Democratic Party a great disservice with this type of talk:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama isn't likely to pick rival Hillary Clinton as a running mate, according to one of his most prominent supporters. "I don't think it's possible," Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital With Al Hunt," airing this weekend.

Kennedy, 76, without naming names, said Obama should pick someone who "is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people. If we had real leadership -- as we do with Barack Obama -- in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful," Kennedy said.

What a terrible terrible thing to say. The Obama camp should disavow it. Unless he said it at their behest. In which case, we are gonna lose in November.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed.

What do Mike Dukakis and John Kerry have in common? They were from Massachusetts and they had images as being soft. It is ironic that the one leading Democratic Presidential candidate who has overcome the "mommy" party problem is a woman -- Hillary Clinton. Susan Faludi explains:

[W]hite men are warming to Hillary Clinton — at least enough to vote for her. It’s no small shift. These men have historically been her fiercest antagonists. Their conversion may point less to a new kind of male voter than to a new kind of female vote-getter.

. . . For years, the prevailing theory has been that white men are often uneasy with female politicians because they can’t abide strong women. But if that’s so, why haven’t they deserted Senator Clinton? More particularly, why haven’t they deserted her as she has become ever more pugnacious in her campaign?

In arguing against a Unity ticket, Mark Schmitt writes:

[Clinton] still suffers under the reputation, developed during the 1990s, that she is some sort of quasi-socialist. That's the worst possible combination: perceived as more liberal than she actually is, while being demonstrably more conservative only on less popular points.

That simply is no longer the case. Schmitt wants to continue to believe that Obama is still seen as some moderate unifying figure and Clinton as some liberal demon. The reverse is fast becoming the perception. Obama supporters do not realize the danger zone Obama is in now. They continue to play ostrich. Time to wake up. We're not in Iowa anymore.

As for his other arguments on the Unity Ticket idea, I find them very weak. A surprisingly poor effort from the usually sharp Mark Schmitt.

By Big Tent Democrat

(Comments now closed 11:29 pm MT)

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer:

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said he would like to see the race between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama continue to Montana's June 3 primary, the last contest in the nation. . . . "Ya know, it's nearly tied," Schweitzer said in an interview. "I think it's been good for the Democratic Party. There's millions of new voters, lots of excitement and energy. I don't know, let the voting continue. Might as well let Montana finish the voting." . . ."It was exciting that the presidential candidates came to Montana, and they now have active presidential campaigns in Montana," the governor said.

Cue the Netroots denunciations of the evil Schweitzer.

By Big Tent Democrat

Kevin Drum agrees with this:

[M]y guess is that if she had voted against the war Clinton would be the Democratic candidate. Given the closeness of the race, her inherent advantages going in, and that the war had to be a liability it's hard to imagine that she wouldn't have prevailed without the Iraq albatross.

If that were true, then it would be a great thing. But I think it is not. Consider the exit polling. In Iowa, Obama and Clinton won the same number of voters who said the economy was the biggest issue as said Iraq was the biggest issue. In Wisconsin, perhaps Obama's most important win, 45% of voters said the economy was the most important issue, and Obama carried them 57-41. He carried Iraq voters 60-39.

It would be nice if people chose Obama based on Iraq. That does not seem to have been the case.

By Big Tent Democrat

I'm off to work, here's an open thread.

Please remember, be civil, no racism charges or personal character attacks and if you have been commenting here less than 30 days, you are limited to 10 comments a day. We only have room for 200 or so on each thread. And, if you are a chatterer, see the rules, you get no more than 20, no matter how long you've been here.

There are inflamed passions out there and I prefer reasoned discussion. Sniping is not appreciated. Drive-by hits without substance will be deleted.

Lots of rules, but these are unusual times and the internet has no eraser. Think before you post, the preview button is your friend.

Update 4:00 pm MT: Comments now closed.

Balloon Juice and Oliver Willis enjoyed this nasty bit of sexism - Hillary Clinton: Psycho Ex-Girlfriend Of The Democratic Party.

Is there any self awareness left in the blogs? Or do these folks really want to alienate every Clinton supporter in the country?

P.S. The blogger who wrote that post's ironic slogan? "Don't be a d*ck!" Try it some time dude.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed.

John Edwards on MSNBC's Morning Joe said he's made up his mind and the person he voted for in the N.C. primary is the one he will ultimately endorse.

You have to listen for yourself to see if he said "him" or "em".

Then David Schuster, another MSNBC host, interrupted: “So it was a him or a her that you voted for?” Mr. Edwards backpedaled a bit, saying, “No, no,” and laughing.

Of course, it is possible that he meant “them,” which he shortened to “’em,” or simply misspoke. (Or he could blame his Southern accent.)

More...

I have long admired WaPo columnist Eugene Robinson but I found his last column offensive and wrongheaded. Like many, Robinson is taking to accusing anyone who recognizes the problem as arguing that white working class voters will not vote for African American candidates. That is a nasty smear from Robinson intended to shut down the discussion. Shame on Eugene Robinson for doing that. Robinson wrote:

Lower-income white Democrats may well defect to John McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee, Clinton is arguing . . . Let's examine th[i]s premise[]. These are white Democrats we're talking about, voters who generally share the party's philosophy. So why would these Democrats refuse to vote for a nominee running on Democratic principles against a self-described conservative Republican? The answer, which Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say, is that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist

(Emphasis supplied.) That is simply false. Consider the argument Bill Clinton made against his opponents in 1992. Or that John Edwards made against his opponents in 2004. They argued they could captured white working class voters and their opponents could not. Under Robinson's construct, it is out of bounds to make the same argument against Obama because he is African American. That is wrong. More. . .

Hillary Clinton will blow out Obama 66-23:

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 57% to 27% among men (43% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 72% to 20%. Clinton leads 70% to 19% among white voters (93% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 91% to 3% among African American voters (5% of likely Democratic primary voters).

But West Virginia is a state that does not count to the Obama Movement. It has those white working class voters that the Creative Class is trying to purge from the Party:

Cultural Shift: Out with Bubbas, up with Creatives. . . . Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of earlier decades. . . . Culturally, the Democratic Party will feel pretty normal to netroots types. It will consistently send out cultural signals designed to appeal primarily to the creative class instead of . . . the white working class.

More...

While Barack Obama has the Problem, there is no doubt he is electable. Heck, any Dem would be in this political climate. Paul Krugman explains why:

First, votes are affected by the state of the economy — mainly economic performance in the year or so preceding the election. Second, the approval rating of the current president strongly affects his party’s ability to hold power. Third, the electorate seems to suffer from an eight-year itch: parties rarely manage to hold the White House for more than two terms in a row. This year, all of these factors strongly favor the Democrats. Indeed, the Democratic Party hasn’t enjoyed this favorable a political environment since 1964.

But being electable does not mean he will win. Krugman recognizes the problem: