Will Racism Decide The Presidential Election?

A Stanford University poll quantifies something we pretty much knew: that a not insignificant percentage of white Democrats are sufficiently racist that they might not vote for Barack Obama.

Details are in this article from AP (hat tip to MJ).

The poll, of more than 2000 adults taken at the beginning of September, found that a number of white voters who self-identified as Democrats were likely to associate certain negative adjectives with blacks in general.

"Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word 'violent' strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with 'boastful,' 29 percent 'complaining,' 13 percent 'lazy' and 11 percent 'irresponsible.' When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment."

In total, one-third of white Democrats cited at least one negative adjective about African-Americans in general, but that didn't mean they wouldn't support Obama: of those who cited a negative adjective, 58% still said they planned to vote for Obama. That's good news and shows that many whites, whatever they think about blacks as a class, still view Obama differently. That makes sense, because whether Obama was black, white, yellow or green, his personal achievements clearly mark him as someone special.

Nonetheless, statistical models derived from the poll suggested that Obama's lead would be another six percentage points absent the race factor, which is more in line with what you would expect after eight years of disastrous Republican rule.

We don't pretent to be surprised. Racism is still quite alive in the U.S. We try to look on the good side, which is the tremendous progress made, to the extent that Obama could get nominated by a major party.

And just look at the progress on the sexism front--now, evidently ANY woman is fit to be at least Vice President, as long as her political views comport with those of the right-wing chattering class.

Palin Selection Does What Obama Couldn't: Unites Hillary Voters In The Democratic Party

We've been waiting and watching for a few days, but it's looking increasingly clear that McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate has done a huge favor for Barack Obama: re-unite those disaffected Hillary voters as Democrats.

We don't know if McCain's strategy in selecting a woman as his running mate was to somehow widen the wedge between Obama and Hillary's supporters, but if it was, it was a terribly stupid strategy.

(On the other hand, perhaps his strategy was to get the conservative wing of the GOP behind him, in which case it was a good move.)

The selection of Palin is an insult to Hillary's supporters because it implies that they were for Hillary solely because she's a woman and the other candidates weren't. Of course, Hillary's supporters weren't backing her just because she's a woman. Hillary was a highly qualified, experienced candidate with terrific political skills and stances on the issues that many voters liked.

While Palin is a woman, any comparison between her and Hillary ends there. Palin is inexperienced and her stance on the issues is an insult to many women. Palin is not just anti-abortion--she would prohibit it in cases of rape or incest, and she's one of those nuts who opposes stem-cell research.

Indeed, Palin seems to be a bit of a nut. Sure, she's interesting, but we wonder what kind of President she'd make if McCain kicks off early. Here's a woman who says she puts her family first, but her ambition to be VP is so great that she knowingly put her 17-year-old daughter through having the entire nation know her unpleasant business. Her judgment in firing Alaska's state police commissioner over an intra-family spat is also questionable. And she's far more conservative than the country would ever tolerate in a major-party's nominee--she makes Huckabee look like a liberal.

In any event, Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. Hillary must've really shattered that glass ceiling, however, if someone as inexperienced as Palin can suddenly be part of the ticket!

Finally, the proof may be in the pudding. Following the Democratic convention, Obama seemed to get a relatively small "bounce" in the polls. But today, with Palin on the ticket and the GOP convention sort of underway, five national polls came out with Obama anywhere from 6-9 points in the lead of McCain.

Thanks John McCain!!

Obama Delivers!!!

Obama did it!

He delivered a big speech, flawlessly, in front of a huge audience, in a stadium filled with the perfect imagery.

The fact the the press was carping and wondering all week if he could pull it off only made it better. (CNN still managed to have as its "fact" as Obama took the stage a statement about Geraldine Ferraro being the only woman on a major party ticket; perhaps when McCain takes the stage they'll have as their "fact" that the GOP has never nominated anyone who wasn't a white man, and indeed hasn't even had anyone else come close.)

Our hats are off the Barack: he'll get a big bounce out of this one. McCain's plan to unveil his veep tomorrow may even backfire.

Next week, the Democrats get to play the little game the Republicans have been playing this week of trying to make news during the other guy's convention. We'll bet Obama will do a pretty good job playing that game.

McCain will have his day, but we hope the media will contrast his nearly all-white, largely male audience of 10,000 or so to Obama's true big tent outdoor speech in front of 75,000.

Obama The Rock Star

We're happy to see John McCain wasting his money on television ads in the middle of summer.

Especially television ads that equate Obama with a rock star. While somewhat amusing, these are risky ads for McCain--while they obviously try to portray Obama as lacking in experience (and judgment by comparing him to Paris Hilton), they could backfire.

First, the comparisons are so far off the mark that even the dimmest voters can tell the difference. Obama clearly has substance compared to a Paris Hilton. If anything, they make him out to be more like Hannah Montana, i.e., the best of both worlds: a rock star WITH substance.

Second, these ads make Obama out to be a larger than life figure, and Americans LIKE larger than life figures.

Finally, McCain is spending a lot of money on television at a point when it does very little good. The real story in the press should be that McCain is so desperate to draw attention to his flagging campaign that he's having to resort to expensive summer ad buys with a risky media proposition just to get some press of his own.

Recently, Obama's campaign briefed major donors and other campaign operatives on strategy for August. They noted that McCain is spending a lot on media in battleground states, but said Obama would not try to match him at this point. Instead, the Obama campaign is investing heavily in field operations, particularly new campaign offices, in battlegroud states. This strategy is quite evident in Virginia, where Obama's campaign is opening 20 offices around the state, thus hitting every part of the Commonwealth.

As we've said before, this is wise strategy. After his nomination in 2004, John Kerry had all kinds of volunteers, but no place to put them. Obama will be in a position to use the tens of thousands of volunteers his campaign will be able to recruit, and we predict they'll be a much better investment than television ads, certainly better than television ads in August.

So go ahead McCain, keep those ads rolling.

Time To Get Serious?

We're pretty much done with travelling for the summer, so maybe it's time to get serious about the political scene. After all, the party conventions are just a few weeks away (remember all that wasted blather--including here--about deadlocked conventions?) and Veep talk fills the air.

Still, it's not even August. Everyone's leaving town. Other than trying to hit a major highway on a Friday afternoon, you can even get around the D.C. metro area without too much trouble.

So, it's difficult to get too serious about the presidential race just yet.

But we'll try. First off, there was Obama's foreign tour. Really, it was a big success, regardless of what the pundits say. You just know there are high level folks over at the McCain campaign saying "why didn't we think of that?" [Of course, McCain would look pretty silly now in Germany surrounded by 5o people--he just doesn't have Obama's drawing power.]

Indeed, it was so successful that the McCain campaign had to manufacture a fake story about Obama shunning hospitalized vets because they wouldn't let the media in. See the Washington Post story on McCain's fabrication--widely picked up by the MSM--here.

Then there's the Veepstakes. Again, just to get some space on the news, the McCain campaign kept leaking false reports last week that the former Straight Talker was about to name his Veep pick. We're still waiting.

On the Obama side, Kaine-mania is sweeping the Old Dominion. We love Tim Kaine, but we don't think Obama will make Virginia's governor his running mate. Kaine is as inexperienced as Obama, and while he's a "moderate" Democrat, his profile is far lower than that of say, Mark Warner or Jim Webb.

In any event, why speculate? August is a slow news month, and both campaigns will seek to generate some coverage by naming their VP picks pretty soon.

We also have Goodling-gate: the Justice Dept. report that it is shocked, just shocked, to learn that Monica Goodling and other Bush/Rove Kommisars were enforcing a political standard for hiring of career lawyers at DOJ. We got news for you: everyone knew this, and it wasn't limited to DOJ. Why do you think our government has been so darned incompetent for the past 7 years?

Finally, here's a little straight talking video of a double-talking John McCain, courtesy of our friend CH:

What Should Barack Do This Summer?

We hope you noticed that things pretty much played out the way we said they would over the past week or so in the Democratic presidential race. As the last primaries wound down, a flood of superdelegates went Obama's way. He declared victory, but gently. He let Hillary find her own way. And she did. By Saturday, she not only conceded, but did so in a gracious and terrific speech. So now the world is all right again, correct?

Well, not quite so. But we think Obama is in better shape within his party than McCain is among the Republicans. Just look at today's column from Bob Novak on the continuing animosity between McCain and evangelical leaders.

So, what should Barack do this summer?

Here's some short answers. First, and foremost, unite his party. Reach out to Hillary supporters, as he's already doing. See if he can have some high profile events with Hillary and Bill. Just as important, give it time. Many of Hillary's supporters will need the time; let them mourn. Be sympathetic.

Second, raise money. Scads of money. And he will.

Third, don't spend all that money stupidly during the summer. Buying television time in the summer is a complete waste of money. Sure, there will be "media advisers" urging him to do that, to "define yourself" before McCain does, blah, blah, blah. These people make their money selling TV. Ignore them. NO ONE IS REALLY PAYING ATTENTION except those who've already made up their minds.

Instead, concentrate on the ground game and uniting the party. The ground game in most campaigns is like the weather. Everyone talks about it, but no one does anything about it. Make this time different. Obama had an incredibly impressive and effective field operation in the primaries. Now, do the same, on steroids, for the general election, especially in battleground states. And really focus on how to take advantage of early voting in those states that allow it.

AFTER the Democratic convention, with it's inevitable "bounce" (followed by the GOP bounce), Obama can start the television campaign and begin pulling out the paid media stops. That's when the real campaign begins. Obama needs to remember that most people aren't like the political junkies and media punditocracy he's surrounded by. Most people can only focus on this for so long without burning out, so don't bug them during the summer, and don't overreact to McCain and his people (react, but be cool about it).

And don't pay too much attention to the polls during the summer either. We know it's going to be a pretty close election. The polls will wax and wane a bit, but not too much. Until Labor Day they're pretty meaningless, except maybe on how Americans feel about issues (instead of candidates).

And have a nice summer--you earned it!

Obama Takes Big Lead In NC Early Voting

Some polls suggest that the NC race may be tightening up a bit. On the other hand, it appears that the early voters in NC have gone heavily for Obama, so he may already have locked in a significant advantage.

According to the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, which does some excellent number crunching, 144,000 North Carolinians had already voted on the Democratic side as of this past Tuesday. (The number came from the NC Board of Elections.)

While CCPS noted that the demographics of those early voters appeared to favor Obama, we now have further data to support that. A Survey USA poll released today includes the results from early voters--kind of an early exit poll. While the sample is quite small, Obama was leading 57%-39% amongst those who said they'd already voted.

A day or so earlier, Public Policy Polling also released a poll that included separate results for early voters. In that poll, 14% of respondents had already voted, so the sample is a bit larger. The results were even more dramatic: Obama 63% to Clinton's 31%.

If those numbers are accurate, Hillary starts in a pretty big hole on election day. We saw the inverse of this in Texas, where polls showed the race narrowing, but Hillary had a big lead in early voters. Ultimately, she won by a comfortable margin.

Meanwhile, Obama continues to outpace Hillary in new superdelegate commitments. Before the Pennsylvania primary, Obama's overall delegate lead got as high as 142. After Pennsylvania, Hillary closed the gap to about 130 delegates, but Obama's lead is now back up to 139 (we use the RealClearPolitics.com delegate count).

Yes, the Rev. Wright controversy has been a drag on Obama. But it doesn't appear to be enough to change the result for Democrats.

Wrong About Wright

Last time we looked, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was not running for President, or anything else. Yet, to look at today's punditocracy, you'd think he was.

Yes, Barack Obama went to Wright's church, and was married by Wright. But he isn't Wright. Maybe someone should look at every writing and sermon of McCain and Clinton's pastors--if they've never said anything controversial, then what good are they?

The Republican party is full of pastors who've said all kinds of stupid things, but for some reason that doesn't count against McCain; it didn't count against Bush; and it won't count against anyone else.

Yet for Barack Obama, the black man, it's suddenly as if his pastor is him. Why is that? Is it "all blacks are alike"? Sure looks like it.

Here's just a sampling of today's commentary on Wright's reappearance in the public eye:

Obama Denounces Wright (The Atlantic)

The Real Rev. Wright (NY Post)

The Anatomy of Wright's Disinvitation (RCP Blog)

Looking for Mr. Wright (LA Times)

A Pastor At Center Stage (George "Whiter Than White" Will)

Rev. Wright=Bad News For Obama (CBS News)

The Wrong Stuff (Weakly Standard)

I Was Wrong About Wright (Salon)

Obama's Pastor Casts A Shadow (NYT)

Where Wright Goes Wrong (WaPo)

We're tired already. We've all seen and heard Barack Obama for many, many months now and it's plain as day that the doesn't embody the attitudes, opinions or beliefs of the Rev. Wright.

For one thing, Wright is an out and out racist, making broad generalizations about both black and white people (e.g., saying black children are right-brained (creative) while white children are left-brained (analytical and logical).

Yet that's not the message the media are passing along. Instead--egged on by the Clinton campaign--they're equating Wright with Obama, or saying Wright is Obama's problem because he was his pastor.

The planet is warming at grave peril to it's inhabitants; world food prices are skyrocketing due in part to some awful policy choices in the U.S.; more U.S. soldiers died in Iraq this month than at any time since last September; inflation has reared it's ugly head at a time of recession; the credit crisis grows worse each day; George W. Bush is as incompetent as ever.

Can't we talk about something relevant?

Swift Boat the Swift Boaters

You can bet that the folks behind the "Swift Boat" attacks on John Kerry, and their erstwhile imitators, will be back in full force this electoral season to go after the Democratic nominee, whoever that is.

Indeed, the current issue of Newsweek has a story on how Sen. Barack Obama is prepared to respond rapidly to any Swift Boat style attacks on him if he is the Democratic standard-bearer, as looks increasingly likely. [This morning Obama's delegate lead was up to 142--its largest yet--in advance of the Pa. primary where Hillary will no doubt close the gap just a bit.]

Newsweek reports that various members of the vast right-wing conspiracy are already hard at work dreaming up "independent" ad campaigns against the Illinois Senator (and yes, the left is also planning such attacks on John McCain), who they expect to be the nominee. Obama's campaign people say they'll repel such attacks with a "rapid-response" force, unlike John Kerry who tried ignoring the Swift Boat ads until it was too late.

At present, likely sources of ammo for a swifting of Obama include his ties to indicted Chicago developer Antoin Rezko and '60's radical William Ayers. We're not so sure "rapid-response" will be enough.

Here's what Obama's (or Hillary's, if nominated) team should do when these attacks invariably launch: swiftboat the swiftboaters. Instead of responding on the issue raised--which only gives it more airplay--expose the folks behind the ads. These are all shadowy Republican operatives with sleazy pasts and ugly agendas. If the voters learn more about those behind the slick ads, they are likely to be repulsed. There may even be a backlash effect.

Something like this should work: "Hi, I'm Senator Barack Obama and I'm running for President because we need change in our political system. Some people don't like change. Recently, you may have seen a television ad like this (showing a still image from an attack ad). What you won't see is anything about the people who paid for it and why they don't want change."

"Let me tell you about these people. This ad was paid for by a group called 'Citizens United' [or whoever it is]. Citizens United is not about uniting the citizens of our great nation for change. It is a very small group of very rich people, most of whom insist on being anonymous, who like things just the way they are. One of the leaders of this group is a man named David Bossie [here, show a grainy black and white of Bossie, just like in the swifting ads]. Although Mr. Bossie is a conservative, his tactics are so repulsive that former President George Bush urged Republicans not to support his group and even filed a complaint against him with the Federal Election Commission. Bossie was fired from one job for leaking misleading and inaccurate information."

[Our facts on Bossie are from his Wikipedia entry.]

"Although we live in a free and open society, you won't be able to find out who funds Bossie's group because these shadowy figures don't want you to know who they are."

"Are these the types of people you want to rely upon for your information on who to vote for in this important election? It is precisely because of these secretive individuals who try to influence our election system that I'm running for change."

[The segue into something positive.]

THAT'S the way to go after the putative swiftboaters.

What Obama Needs To Do

Here's what Obama needs to do to sew up the Democratic nomination before the August convention.

FIRST, he needs to put forward a plan to enfranchise Florida and Michigan voters. Obama needs to take the high road, once again demonstrating an ability to rise above petty politics. He can afford to let Hillary come out ahead in delegates from both of those states, especially if he gets credit for breaking the logjam.

In Florida, Obama should signal a willingness to live with the results, as is. It's not likely that the result would have been significantly different if the primary had been held later, or if there were to be a re-vote. Both names were on the ballot, the turnout approximated what it would've been, and neither candidate had an unfair advantage. So accept the result, but get credit for resolving the problem.

Michigan is tougher. It's clear from turnout figures that a lot of people stayed home. And Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. Obama shouldn't just accept a solution that locks in the results of that primary, BUT he should push for a solution that recognizes Hillary would probably come out with more delegates. It's frankly more important to get the issue resolved than to fight it out over every delegate.

So far, the candidates themselves have been mum on Florida and Michigan, leaving it to their campaigns and surrogates to address the issues. Obama can change that by speaking out himself, declaring, first and foremost, that the Florida and Michigan voters' voices must be heard, and advocating for a fair and quick resolution.

SECOND, Obama must start putting pressure on the undeclared Superdelegates to declare. In this, he can--and should--be aided by Democratic activists and party officials, including us bloggers. Of course, the Obama campaign is wooing those Superdelegates in private. But if he can get Florida and Michigan solved--or at least pulbicly declare his support for seating those states' delegates, then he can turn to the Superdelegates.

The key, and this should come from bloggers and others, is to publicly name all undecided Superdelegates and start shaming them into making decisions. We would focus especially on those Superdelegates from states that have already voted. A Superdelegate is not required to support whoever won his/her state or congressional district; but, we think once they have that piece of information they ought to make their decisions.

In any event, all Superdelegates should be forced to declare their choice by early June, when the last nominating contests will be done. We don't think the Democratic Party needs to--or can--force that issue; but the Democratic Party's activists can do it. (There are 795 Superdelegates; according to Realclearpolitics.com, 469 of them have declared a preference so far, leaving 326 who need to be pressured into making a decision.)

If this all happens, Obama is likely to have the nomination in the bag by June, which gives him some time to mend fences and start after McCain before the August convention.

Otherwise, Obama is in for a long, hot summer with things hanging in the air. He's especially vulnerable if Michigan and Florida aren't decided and it's going to go down to a nasty floor fight at the convention.

Why Obama's Winning

Why is Barack Obama beating Hillary Clinton pretty handily in contest after contest? The Curmudgeon's brother has a simple theory: because he's simply more appealing--more pleasing to look at and more pleasing to listen to.

"The fact is that Barack Obama is more pleasing to look at than Hillary Clinton, and he also is more pleasing to listen to. For a great number of voters who otherwise have trouble making up their minds (two terrific candidates, right?), this has and will continue to carry the day in his favor. Nobody articulates their decision this way, but the impact is very real, and now magnified when only these 2 candidates are left. CNN reported one exit poll from Wisconsin that 62% of voters making up their minds in the last 30 days went for Obama. Hillary looks and sounds and smirks like an old-school politician. She says all the right things but there’s an element of sincerity and likeability that’s missing. Barack oozes confidence and inspiration, yet doesn’t seem condescending or pandering."

We have to agree. The distinction becomes important especially when you have two candidates whose substantive views on the issues are virtually indistinguishable. It's the "all things being equal" scenario: if two candidates are the same on the issues, then appearance and likeability will carry the day.

Brother Curmudgeon also points to a book by motivational speaker/author Tony Robbins, who compared Kennedy v. Nixon, Carter v. Ford, Reagan v. Carter and Reagan v. Mondale to explain that the winner of each of those races had it over the loser in terms of appealability.

Of course, if that's the standard, both Obama and Clinton should be able to defeat McCain this fall. But Obama would have the bigger advantage.

OBAMA For President

In case you missed it, buried at the end of a long post this weekend, the Curmudgeon will be voting for Sen. Barack Obama in tomorrow's Virginia Democratic primary.

Sorry Mrs. Curmudgeon.

Obama has run a terrific campaign, with an inspirational message that has gotten many truly excited for the first time in ages. It's been a long road so far and he hasn't stumbled.

To be sure, there are risks in nominating Obama, as there are in nominating Senator Clinton. We believe Obama will match up better against McCain this fall than will Hillary. It will be a battle for independent voters, and Hillary just doesn't turn them on (other than blue collar women--and they are important).

We do worry about the Hispanic vote with Obama, but believe he can make inroads with that demographic by November. (Obama/Richardson, anyone?)

Obama is a more convincing candidate for change than Hillary--although we do subscribe to the notion that both represent significant change.

We've found this a surprisingly tough choice to make, but we think it's the right decision.

Obama Rolling

Barack Obama is on a roll, and it won't stop with today. He's apparently swept Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington today and he's likely--based on lopsided polls--to sweep Virginia, Maryland and DC on Tuesday.

We spoke to a Clinton strategist today who, fully expecting Obama's strength this week, claimed the calendar would favor Hillary after Tuesday. Problem is, you have to factor in the momentum effect of Obama's serial victories in this stretch on the later contests.

Hillary is in danger. By the same token, she's been there before--after Iowa with the MSM proclaiming an Obama victory in New Hampshire based on polls--only to bounce back, so certainly don't count her out.

In any event, if Obama becomes the "frontrunner," just see what happened to McCain today. This truly is a wild and wacky election season.

Hillama versus McAbee?

Wow, we're falling down on the job here at Curmudgeon HQ. Last night we went to see a screening of one of AOL founder Ted Leonsis's "filmanthropy" projects, "Nanking," at Georgetown University. An excellent documentary so long as you don't mind nearly two hours of depressingly gruesome stories.

But that caused us to miss all kinds of other stories of our modern era. Hillary was right here in Arlington, speaking at Washington-Lee High School, where the young Curmudgeons will go if they manage to make it our of middle school. We missed it, but judging from the emails we're getting from both campaigns, Virginia is a real battleground between Clinton and Obama for the next few days.

Indeed, Virginia Democrats timed their Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Richmond perfectly--who knew the race would still be in issue by this point--so that attendees this weekend will get the full treatment from both Hillary and Barack. Friends of ours are going--we're jealous.

Then, of course, Romney dropped out yesterday. A shrewd move on his part--shows the calculating businessman in him. He had no shot at this point, but he's still relatively young (certainly compared to McCain) and has built himself a good base in the Republican Party, so he cuts his losses and lives to fight another day.

We predict Huckabee will go one more round--through next Tuesday--then also graciously drop out (unless conservatives somehow rally around him--we doubt it--and he sweeps the Saturday and Tuesday contests).

We spent our post-movie evening last night debating the merits of Hillary versus Obama. Spiritedly debating, we might add. Too bad we broke down along predictable lines: the wives were for Hillary; the men-folk for Obama (although respectful of Hillary--we do like her).

With McCain as the GOP nominee, Democrats need the strongest ticket possible. We think that's Hillary and Obama, or Hillama. The remaining primaries are not going to decide this contest--it's too close and with proportional delegate allocation, neither candidate can get a real leg up. So pretty soon it's going to be time for party elders (not Bill) to get the candidates in a room and have a good, mature discussion about it.

Meantime, who's McCain going to pick as his veep? Having gotten the nomination on about a 35% plurality of the party, he has a lot of mollifying to do. It certainly won't be someone like Joe "been there, done that" Lieberman. It could be Fred Thompson, although we doubt he's interested--better to go back to television than be a figurehead veep.

Someone who would be interested is Mike "I don't have a job after this" Huckabee. That would certainly help with a significant segment of the evangelical community. Call it the McAbee ticket. But conservatives decided--pretty unfairly--to label Huckabee a "liberal" (that nastiest of all Republican sobriquets) early on, and they would see McAbee as far too centrist for their tastes.

So does McCain go with someone hard right? And if so, who? Kansas Senator Sam Brownback could fit that bill--bringing home evangelicals along with conservatives. There are others, of course. The problem is that many of the more vocal, bomb-throwing conservatives will never be mollified, no matter who McCain picks as his veep, so he may decide "hey, why bother."

We're not making any forecasts, at least not yet.

Heck, we're still trying to decide who to vote for on Tuesday. Probably Obama, despite Mrs. Curmudgeon's protestations. As Virginians, we'd love to see an Obama/Kaine ticket, really putting the state into play in November, but we're not going to bet any real money on that one.

And don't forget tomorrow's contests in Washington, Louisiana, Kansas (GOP only), Nebraska (Dem only) and the Virgin Islands (Dem).