BlogHer - Who you gonna call? Obama, or Hillary? "Mini Super Tuesday" Preview - Comments

Sure there is no rule

Erin Kotecki Vest — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:11:51 -0600

However we all KNOW it's going to keep going on and on and on.

That 3am ad made me queasy. And I'm ANGRY anyone on "my" side of the aisle would stoop that low. So I've lost all faith they will "be friends before this campaign and after this campaign" or do what is best for this country.

I'd desperately love to believe again, but it would take a huge act. Disappointment doesn't even begin to feel how I describe. When I decided to back Obama I honestly believed I would continue cheering on Clinton and be happy regardless in August at the convention. Now I'm angry and bitter and disappointed more than I can say in a woman I considered a role model.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

It's not the gender...it's Hillary.

Marilyn — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:07:48 -0600

If I'd have been 18 instead of 17 when she ran, I'd have given my vote to Shirley Chisolm. I've been waiting decades to vote for a female President, but I won't support someone I don't believe is a good candidate just because she's a woman. If Hillary had taken a completely different approach to her campaign--if she'd campaigned as her own person (and left Bill at home)...if she'd have been secure enough in herself as a candidate to forgo partisan tactics and leave special interest money alone....then maybe I'd have given her a serious look. But that's not who she is (apparently, given the campaign she's run). And I can't help but think that she's set us back...yet again.

The Land of Moo

Co-Founder of Bloggers for Darfur

Obama and Clinton can still "choose" to stop fighting.

Catherine Morgan — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:03:45 -0600

Hey Morra. There is no "rule" that says these two have to keep fighting with each other. They could agree that they will be a team, and stop battling each other. They could then take on McCain and the GOP together, while the rest of the country still has an opportunity to vote in their primaries. Once all states have voted, the delegate count can determine who will be the presidential nominee, and who will be the running mate.

I think after tomorrow, enough of the country will have spoken.

I imagine Pennsylvania might disagree with you. If we want to nominate candidates earlier, then the DNC needs to allow all the states to have their primaries earlier.

Let's face it...PA, FL, and all the states that are basically disenfranchised because of the way we conduct primaries...are some of the most important in the general election. It seems we should want these voters feeling good about the election process. If change is what this country wants...why not start giving them change right now?

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

I love Hillary but I disagree Catherine

Morra Aarons Mele — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:20:45 -0600

Every day we Dems continue to battle each other is a day McCain and GOP gains strength. We have to stop spending money, air time and effort in-fighting, and rest for the battle ahead. I think after tomorrow, enough of the country will have spoken.

Personally I read it as a pushed talking point

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:27:02 -0600

I don't believe it and I believe that many men don't believe it - they are just in denial and/or not happy about it, and I'm not joking, as harsh as that sounds.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Thanks for this!

PunditMom — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:45:28 -0600

Catherine, I thought I was the only one who felt this way! Thanks for saying this!

White Men??

PunditMom — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:43:46 -0600

If that does happen, the question is what more is there for women voters to do? Part of the problem, I admit, is that we have two great Democratic candidates instead of just one so it splits our vote. Who knew that would be a problem??

Don't despair. :)

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:04:21 -0600

Seriously - I'm sure we've all witnessed political battles that seemed this way until things shook out and yet we do mend up. Here in Ohio in 2006 it was Paul Hackett pulling out and Sherrod Brown entering and winning. It was very divisive in the wonk level but in the end, people pulled it out for Brown.

I think the need to unify if we want to move past the Bush Admin. is going to be very very strong - at least on the Dem side. I don't sense any strong message coming from the Republican side - Dana?

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Hillary, Please Don't Drop Out Until All Votes Have Been Counted

Catherine Morgan — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:02:29 -0600

This is a post I wrote last night expressing how I feel about the race between Clinton and Obama...

I know I am in the minority when I say this...But, I do not think that under any circumstances, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, should concede the Democratic nomination. At least not until every state has held it's primary. This election is just much too important for that. Sadly, most would prefer Hillary Clinton bow out gracefully if she doesn't have a landslide victory on Tuesday.

From The New York Times...

Top supporters of Senator Barack Obama, joined by at least one prominent Democrat yet to endorse a candidate, put pressure on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday to bow out of the presidential race unless she scores clear victories in the crucial big-state primary contests on Tuesday.

From Erin Kotecki Vest at The Huffington Post and BlogHer...

Dear Senator Clinton, Please Step Down

Like I said, "I don't agree." This isn't just any election, this is an historic election. One where Democrats will be nominating either the first woman or the first African American to be our next president. And I think it is only fair that all Democrats (except of course Florida*), have an opportunity to vote in this primary.

If the candidates (and the DNC) truly care about uniting the party, then they should agree that regardless of the outcome, Clinton and Obama will run as a team. And then, from this moment, and until every state has had an opportunity to vote, Hillary and Barack should campaign on the issues only, and drop all the rhetoric and mudslinging.

I know this is a radical idea, and one that will probably not be adopted. However, by uniting the candidates, the party becomes united. And by allowing every state to hold a primary that "counts", the DNC will continue to unite the voters in preparation for the general election. Let's face it...How well has this primary system (of deciding the nominee before all states have had a chance to vote), served us in the past? Not so well.

It seems clear that voters want all votes to be counted, so why not just do it? I think it's about time to recognize that the old system is not working. And the primaries are going to be held in every state either way, so why not let them all count?

Guess what? It's not to late to do right by the American people.

*By the way...Governor Charlie Crist has announced that he would support another Primary in Florida.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

White Men, and that Phone Ad

Erin Kotecki Vest — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:51:00 -0600

If it's white men that end up deciding this election do we all just give up and go home? ;) I mean geez, we finally get two candidates of REAL change and , ahem, white men still decide our fate.

Also-that 3am ad made me vomit. I've been willing to overlook many things by each campaign but I about lost all respect for the Clinton Camp when they trotted that one out. I mean did they just read the GOP playbook circa 2003 and implement?

I'm annoyed. Can you tell? lol I mean NONE of this is working out like it should. We're going to have party infighting and scare tactics and now despite our female demo having OWNED the influence in this one, it's somehow been blown.

GAH!

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Yes-sorry I wasn't clear; Dispatch has Clinton up by 16!!!

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:48:00 -0600

Hi Morra -

lol it's so funny these charades we keep up, huh!? They run the world knowing that it's really us who run the world - just ask a husband or father! :)

Here's the Columbus Dispatch mail-in poll info with Clinton up by 16%!

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

but I think that post is about the general election

Morra Aarons Mele — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:32:24 -0600

We all know white men run the world (facetious) but the primary decision is NOT theirs!

CNN Saturuday 3/1 and white men making the decision for everyone

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:41:30 -0600

Here's the blog post I'd seen.

I'm trying to find where on CNN it was - anyone else see the segment? It appears as though it was Saturday morning before 9am EST.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

3/3 Final Ohio Poll projections JUST arrived in my inbox!

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:12:09 -0600

As I was reading your great post, Morra! (It dinged in while I was trying to find an Ohio blog post I saw over the weekend re: someone thinks the white male vote nationally will be the deciding factor).

From the Ohio Poll (it's a PDF) (dates taken: 2/28/-3/2):

Clinton 51%
Obama 42
Edwards 6
ME: 3.9%

Republican:

McCain 53%
Huckabee 24%

ME: 5.4%

I sense Clinton will pull it out in Ohio but it's hard to say. The most disturbing thing I'm seeing in the blogs is a trend toward serious distortion - for example, saying that Clinton is paying people $10/hour to get out there for her, when I know for a fact that ACORN is paying people very well to do the exact same of Obama - I've even emailed the bloggers writing about the Clinton pay with the letter from ACORN asking me to help spread the word about paying people to canvass and so on - still, nothing posted from them. This is part of what bothers me about a number of things in Obama's campaign - it's like the voting present and the it's okay because he's my friend. I know a lot of people don't agree with my take - but it's a pattern of how Obama deals - he doesn't - he does what some might call staying above the fray - but in a president - don't we need someone who will get right into the fray and maybe even do things that start the fray?

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Who you gonna call? Obama, or Hillary? "Mini Super Tuesday" Preview

Morra Aarons Mele — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:25:06 -0600

Current Democratic campaign messages in a paragraph or less.
Media wisdom: If Clinton doesn't win big either Ohio or Texas, it's done (see Clinton, B and Carville, J). Hillary misread this election. The first woman candidate, for god sakes, could have been about change, but she and her advisers ran as the Establishment candidate. They blew it.

Clinton: I’m ready on day one. If the phone rings at 3 am with a world crisis, you want me, experienced and ready to lead like my ad says. Obama is spending like crazy to win, but he can’t seem to close this thing: as my adviser Howard Wolfson said, "If he is unable to win all four states it shows Democrats are engaged in what some in the media have called buyers' remorse." And, if you’re an Ohio voter, here’s a special NAFTA message: I have been critical of it for a long time and I’m going to take a long hard look at it when I win (and ps, why did an Obama adviser call Canadian officials and tell them “not to worry” about Obama’s tough talk on NAFTA)? In short, the press loves Obama so much, and he’s run so hard, and I’M STILL HERE, DAMN IT!!!

Obama: Hillary is using fear-mongering, tired tactics just like Bush did in 2004. I have better judgment than her anyway- here’s my counter ad saying I had real judgment on Iraq. Anyway, it doesn’t matter, because my Campaign Manager Plouffe says "The Clinton campaign has said they need to win both Texas and Ohio by over ten points…They are going to fail on that measure and fail miserably."

Pretty ridiculous, eh, that the future of our country boils down to a few talking points. All of which, by the way, have been generated by overpaid campaign consultants and are mostly about tactics and process. It’s time to end this endless chess game.

So here’s my question. Women of Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island is this your time? In Texas and Ohio, women will likely be between 52% and 59% of voters, based on previous data. And this year, turnout will be even higher, with more unmarried women and youth turning out. Many factors are at play, but it
s fair to say the women's vote is the biggest. Texan Dori Glanz writes:

Who wins will depend on a lot of things—which voters are informed about the bizarre “Texas Two Step” which allows voters to vote in the primary and caucus this Tuesday, where the Hispanic vote goes (I still insist it will go to Hillary by a significant margin), how women respond to Hillary’s constant references to Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards, and how new youth voters influence the process with their hours of volunteering or with their votes. Polls are tricky in a state with so much demographic and geographical diversity and statistics show that despite polls, Hillary closes stronger, carrying more voters who make their candidate choice on the same day they vote.. Remember California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts? But, one thing I am sure of is that this election on Tuesday will change the face of the state for years to come.

Both big primaries are too close to call. In the latest Cleveland Plain Dealer poll Clinton and Obama are virtually tied, Clinton 47% Obama 43%. But check out the gender gap: Clinton with 53% of women, Obama with 38%. The gender gap holds in Texas too; Clinton has 37% of men, 51% of women. How does this play out in practice? Women don’t always vote for Hillary, even if they say they will. As Robin Toner points out, on Feb. 19th in Wisconsin, Mr. Obama drew the support of 67 percent of the men, including 80 percent of the men under 45. He and Mrs. Clinton divided the women 50-50.

So we’ll look at the results of the Democratic women’s turnout on Wednesday and learn, finally, whether women’s tendency to favor Clinton turns into victory. I think a lot of women polled state loyalty to Clinton but when it comes to voting, the desire to pull the lever for Obama wins over.

Whether women do make the difference for Clinton, one question will remain. Is it the woman, Hillary? Or does the country not want a woman president? Robin Toner’s article offers this quote: “The notion that she is a Rorschach test for where we are on gender issues was true on day one, when we met her, and it’s absolutely true today,” said Ms. Dolan. “So when people say, it’s just her, I don’t buy it.”

To me, this notion is particularly poignant in commentary about how Clinton “can’t stop talking about herself,” as Mary Matalin put it on Meet the Press. Clinton is still facing the same questions of likeability. Her “why don't we just offer Barack a pillow” comment backfired miserably. Conservative Carol Platt Liebau notes Clinton’s “grievance mentality” has remerged to turn off voters. When Clinton complains, she has a “grievance mentality.” Oy. And Hillary really can’t do funny. I don’t think she ever found her voice.

It may all be for naught anyway. Obama has 1,194 delegates; Clinton has 1,037. Obama has 208 superdelegates (he’s gained 38 since Super Tuesday) and Hillary has 254. So Obama has a 111 delegate vote lead (Maria Niles wrote a great guide to delegates here). It’s going to be really hard for Hillary to win enough delegates, especially with Vermont in the mix, which will go hard for Obama.

Talk to you tomorrow.