Posted on 03/22/2008 9:14:37 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
WASHINGTON -It is already easy to imagine the Republican attack ads against Barack Obama.
They open with video of his wife, Michelle, saying she was proud of America "for the first time in my adult lifetime" because of her husband's presidential candidacy. Cut to the Illinois Senator explaining that he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin because it is a "substitute for true patriotism." Then flash a clip of Obama explaining that his Caucasian grandmother was a "typical white person" because she uttered racial epithets and was afraid of black people.
Finally, the coup de grace, pictures of Obama's angry, arm-waving preacher blaming the United States for 9/11 and shouting "God Damn America" to the rafters of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.
Game, set, election, John McCain.
Sound implausible? Hillary Clinton doesn't think so.
The former first lady's best --and, possibly, only --chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination now hangs on a fragile thread. Far behind in delegates and the popular vote, and with re-votes unlikely in Florida and Michigan, Clinton must convince Democratic superdelegates -- the party officials who have become the kingmakers of the race -- that Obama has been so tainted by controversy that he is unelectable.
"The more that the voters learn about Barack Obama, the more his ability to beat John McCain is declining compared to Hillary," Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, wrote in a campaign memo this week. "For a long time we have explained that poll numbers for a candidate who has not yet been vetted or tested are not firm numbers, and we are beginning to see that clearly."
Clinton herself has remained deliberately, and quietly, on the sidelines as the tempest over Obama's invective-spouting pastor, Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., wreaked havoc on his campaign.
But while Clinton can't dare say it, Pastor Wright may well be the answer to her White House prayers.
"If your opponent is trying to commit [political] suicide, it's wise to just stand back," says Michael Munger, chair of the political science department at Duke University. "Obama seems to be trying to commit suicide. So there is no reason for Hillary to rise up and start shooting at him."
By most empirical measures of the Democratic presidential race, Hillary Clinton's campaign should be on its death bed.
With only 10 states left to hold Democratic primaries or caucuses, Obama has won 1,414 pledged delegates to 1,246 for Clinton, giving him a 168-delegate advantage. When the support of committed "superdelegates" is factored in, Obama has 1,625 delegates to Clinton's 1,494.
Obama's delegate lead has grown large enough, in fact, that Clinton cannot overtake him among pledged delegates unless she wins two-thirds of the vote in every remaining primary and caucus.
That's a tall order even in Hillary-friendly Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22, and a taller one yet in North Carolina and Oregon, later-voting states where black voters and upscale liberals tilt to Obama.
Beyond that, Obama has a commanding lead over Clinton in the popular vote, 13.3 million to 12.6 million, a technically meaningless but still symbolic measure of Democratic support throughout the primary season. And yet.
As carefully crafted and courageous as Obama's speech on racial unity seemed to many Democrats, the controversy it addressed has provided ammunition for his political opponents.
Obama's post-racial, culturally transcendent candidacy suddenly became vulnerable to the deep-rooted racial anxieties of many white voters who could swing either Democrat or Republican in November.
Worse yet, the image of Obama's spiritual advisor espousing anti-American views will give critics the opportunity to question his patriotism, a line of attack that has until now seemed legitimate only to the most conspiratorial and subversive of his enemies on the far right.
Make no mistake, this is a dangerous time for Obama's campaign.
"Questioning someone's patriotism is clearly an effective political strategy," says Brian Schaffner, a political scientist at American University of research director for the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies in Washington.
"Obama has had all these minor little squabbles about his patriotism before the race thing, like whether he wears
an American flag over his lapel and whether he holds his hands to his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Eventually it can create a narrative where people think he is not very patriotic."
Any hint that a presidential candidate lacks undying patriotism is "a potential game-breaker for blue collar white Americans who might otherwise vote Democratic because they are with the Democrats on economic issues," Schaffner says.
Just ask John Kerry. The Democratic candidate was a decorated Vietnam veteran whose 2004 candidacy was destroyed, in part, because the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth smeared his service record and attacked his later dissent over the Vietnam War as unpatriotic.
Munger believes Obama, unfairly, now faces serious questions about his electability.
"When it comes down to it, we're really concerned that our president is pro-American," he said.
"If Obama got to talk to every individual voter, he could win. That's not the way it's going to work. We are going to see attack ads with pictures of Rev. Wright."
Clinton knows this, and so do her strategists, who told The New York Times they need the controversy over Obama's pastor to fester.
If Clinton can convince Democratic superdelegates she now has a better chance to beat McCain, it's conceivable they would go against the will of Democratic primary voters and abandon Obama en masse.
"I had a sickening feeling watching Obama's speech [on race]. This was a great speech. And he showed a lot of the character that a president should have," says Munger. "But that's not how we elect presidents. We elect presidents with 30-second ads about Swift boats." Or maybe not.
Obama's saving grace may be that many Democratic superdelegates remain acutely aware of Clinton's own electability problems. They remember the polarization of American politics during Bill Clinton's administration, and how Democrats kept losing congressional seats in midterm elections while he was president.
And they're not totally blind -- they have seen poll after poll showing Clinton consistently has the highest "negative" approval rating of any candidate.
"Because people don't know Obama very well, it gives him a greater opportunity to recover," says Schaffner. "He has months and months to build his reputation back up."
But he has to stop making mistakes. His comment on Thursday to a Philadelphia radio station -- that his racially suspicious grandmother was a "typical white person" -- poured new fuel on a controversy that he seemed to be bringing under control.
"In all honesty, it does seem that there is a sharpening of the racial divide over Obama's candidacy," says Stephen Schneck, a political scientist at Catholic University in Washington.
But Schneck believes "it would still be a long shot" for Clinton to win the Democratic nomination.
"I would not want to be in Senator Clinton's shoes. I think some breaks are falling her way ... but she has also had some difficulties," he says. "She hasn't been able to convince Florida or Michigan to back doing new primaries which would allow her to get a number of delegates ... More than anything else, that is going to block her from winning the nomination."
Munger believes Obama, unfairly, now faces serious questions about his electability.Unfairly?
What does "unfairly" mean in terms of electability?
Electability is a purely mathematical estimation of whether or not the number of supporters out there is large enough to enable victory at the polls.
To say someone is "unelectable", or to question someones "electability" has nothing to do with fairness, unless you believe that the universe someowe owes someone an elected job.
If I question someone's electability, I might be wrong -- in the sense that I'm misjudging the actual numbers out there in the electorate-- but it's impossible for me to be unfair.
Clinton’s going to win the nomination. The “superdelegates” have got to be very worried at this point about Osama’s gaffs. I predict they will give Clinton the nomination and use her uncounted “wins” in MI and FL as political cover.If you really believe that, you've got a tremendous opportunity over at https://www.intrade.com/# where $100 wager will return you $500 when she's nominated. Go for it.
I personally wouldn't touch that bet with a 10-foot pole. I think the true odds are more like 20-1 against her.
(Though I personally wouldn't bet the other side because I'm not a big fan of laying odds, as opposed to taking odds.)
Nice try Mr. Alberts.
The Marxist hillary has the sign “racist” permanently affixed to her forehead with a railroad spike. The inner city voter fraud machine will be closed to racist hillary on election day.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a number precinct captains in places like Detroit or Cleveland come forward to “confess” and expose hillary’s voter fraud network.
A 527 might.
On that note, I’m wondering who controls the vote fraud machine in Philly. If it’s the state party, Rendell is a big Hillary supporter. If it’s the locals, I’ve got to think they’re big Obama supporters.
His partiotism, like Kerry’s is unquestionable; put simply, each is an anti-American marxist with no patriotism at all.
Hey, thanks! I think I will!
Don’t bet more than you can afford to lose, cause I think you’re gonna lose.
As I recall the story, she gave two speeches which contained that line. She added the word really in the second speech. It definitely wasn't in the first one.
McCain doesn’t have the balls to attack the Obomination like that. He’s still playing soft ball with the liberals thinking they’ll vote for him. He’s an idiot.
[Eight months after the fact] Barack Obama blasts pro-Hamas Op-Ed
Jerusalem Post | March 24, 2008 | RON KAMPEAS/ JTA
Posted on 03/23/2008 10:19:29 PM EDT by rdl6989
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1990450/posts
Bill Clinton: Democratic race could come down to NC vote
Associated Press | 03/21/2008 | MIKE BAKER
Posted on 03/22/2008 5:25:48 PM EDT by george76
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1990008/posts
Quislings embedded in the U.S. Government, especially the State Department, CIA and other career bureaucracies serving career politicians may be smart and even brilliant, just like their namesake Vidkun Quisling.
However, just like Quisling, their greatly overestimate their own importance and the admiration that they think their underlings have for them.
To some, they are mere opportunists. To most, they are mere tools to advance the careers of the next generation of opportunists.
If public service was really treated as an opportunity to serve rather than a lifetime entitlement to live as a member of the ruling class, then a plan such as this to give the public sector the same sense of shared fate as the private sector rather than to further empower a gated community in a parallel universe would be given serious consideration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.