PA Post-mortem …

Even though Sen. Clinton’s win is not the biggest win considering how far ahead she was only a month ago, it’s still a win and the continuation of a peculiar losing streak for Obama. But, he can still claim that he did way better than expected – you can still argue this either way. It could’ve been much worse for Obama, particularly in a state that was tailor-made for Clinton.

It’s a win in a large state that is considered a major battleground during the general election. Therefore, what matters at this stage is how much distance she can go despite being broke compared to the campaign financing juggernaut that is Sen. Obama. It’s obvious that he’s playing a game of attrition against Clinton, prompting her to spend more money than she has and extending her resources beyond what she’s able to sustain.

But, clearly, Obama has a major problem going into Indiana and North Carolina on May 6th. He and his supporters have much reason to worry when looking at the metrics of the situation. He had money to outspend her 3-to-1; he had more troops on the ground to canvass; he was clearly closing the gap in the polls. He still didn’t do as well as expected in places like Philadelphia, where you have a huge African American voting base. And he is still faced with this peculiar trend of undecided voters who, in the case of major states like New Hampshire, California, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, constantly break for Clinton on the very eve of each primary. What does that say? Are those undecideds primarily White voters who are unwilling to admit to pollsters that, ultimately, they just can’t see themselves voting for an African American as President? There are signs of that infamous “Bradley Effect” embedded within the undecided demographic. There are also indications from exit polling data that a majority of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania appear more comfortable with the notion of Clinton as their nominee than they do Obama.

The problem is now perception for Obama. He has to regain the momentum of perception; he has to show an ability to win the big states.

Still, Clinton’s negatives and the perception that she is not trustworthy are clearly hurting her. Obama was able to, in very rapid fashion, aggressively close the polling gap through criss-crossing the state and providing voters in that state with the opportunity to know him better. That shouldn’t have happened.

That said, White women, as usual, carried Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania. White women have saved Sen. Clinton time and time again, and they are the force to be reckoned with in the Democratic primary. That’s problematic for Obama should he become the nominee. He may not be faced with the same negatives in polling data that Clinton is faced with, but he is faced with the specter of racialized and gender-based decision making at the voting booth. In this respect, he has to win Indiana in order to regain control of the perception game.

The “Bitter-gate” Mess …

First of all, it lacks creativity and thought when cats paste the word “gate” at the end of every political scandal or controversy.  It’s whack.  There’s no other way to describe it. 

There is a manufactured quality to this controversy, and its timing – right on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary – creates the impression that it’s somewhat engineered.  In reality, it is much to do about nothing. Another example of the 24/7 news cycle needing something to clamor about.  There is the sense that the political news cycle is slow at the moment, the primary is dragging on and media folks are bored. 

In reality, small towns in rural areas are frustrated, they are definitely bitter about a whole array of economic challenges.  Republicans have been very good at using that frustration to create boogeymen like affirmative action and immigration to further their political agenda.  Which is why they are making much noise about it since they feel the political landscape shifting from hot button social wedge issues to substantive bread and butter issues.  If we were Republican, we’d get worried too – this isn’t 2000 or 2004.  It doesn’t appear as though peeps will be voting on whether their gay neighbors should be married.  People are hurting financially, and when it’s all said and done, they’ll be voting according to what their bank statements say.

 

Senator Obama has picked up on that sort of frustration during the course of this campaign and tapped into it – which is underscored by the type of enthusiasm generated by his candidacy.  When examining the entire quote, one finds that it is appropriate and cogent within the context of the question that was asked: how do you effectively reach out to “blue collar” voters? 

 

The Clintons are clearly looking for anything to reverse shrinking poll numbers at the moment.  But, Senator Clinton should be very careful in pressing forward with the “elitist” argument.  First, Hillary Clinton calling Barack Obama “elitist” is like Barry Bonds calling Roger Clemens a cheater.  She is not in a position to engage in name-calling nor is John McCain.  She’s been insulated in a political bubble of the Governor’s mansion and the White House for most of her public life, more recently earning $109 million over seven years with her former President husband.  John McCain is from an elite military family, his father an admiral, and he married into money, not to mention that he’s been in elected office since 1982.  Who is the most “elite?”  When was the last time either Clinton or McCain had to worry about paying off student loans, paying down mortgages or going from paycheck-to-paycheck?  The “elitist” argument simply rings hollow in this sense. Being in touch with the “blue collar” electorate is not about how many shots of whiskey you can drink, or how much beer you can swallow, or how many guns you own.  That’s being patronizing. It’s about whether you are truly addressing the serious issues of joblessness, economic despair and disillusionment felt by many in rural America. 

 

We’re not so sure Obama needs to deflect questions about this controversy during Wednesday’s debate.  There is a grand opportunity here to stick to his talking points on the economy, to present what makes his plan stronger. Here, he can discuss the need to rally people into a cause that motivates Washington to do things differently. What he needs to talk about is that during the course of this campaign, he is talking to people and is aware of their frustrations.  The issue is not whether people are bitter or angry, the issue is whether or not government has been responsive to their needs during times of economic crisis over the past three decades.

 

The other piece of this is the racial sub-text to this story.  Yeah: we appreciate Philly talk show host Michael Smerconish’s comments on MSNBC last night.  It is “rich” and ironic when you have the African American candidate being called “elitist.”  That’s a first.  But, in truth, media-heads are annoyed by Obama’s sophistication, annoyed by the fact that a Black man can get this far being the way he is – in many ways, it debunks the notions regarding the Black middle class, and that Black wealth and success centers around Black athletes and entertainers.  Finally, they see the opportunity to vent that frustration, the frustration that he’s “middle class” in a way that isn’t defined by the constraints of his Blackness.  It annoys many that he shops at Whole Foods, he can’t bowl, he’s Harvard educated. “Well, he’s certainly not acting Black the way he’s supposed to be acting,” they say “so he must be elitist.”  Essentially, he defies the conventional mindset. He’s the “uppity negro” that they have to respect, but can’t stand. And this latest controversy shows that in so many ways.    

Tasteless politics …

A few interesting images on the political news circuit which is leaving quite a bad taste in our collective throats:

1) We caught this photo courtesy of the DemocraticUnderground.com blog.  For certain, Sen. Hillary Clinton didn’t do this on purpose, she just wasn’t thinking.  But, when one lacks respect for the memory and the location, one is inclined to slip on what one thinks is the small stuff – but really isn’t:

2) So, here we go again, peeps inside the Beltway just love using Martin Luther King, Jr. as a political prop.  Not certain what the background image of the MLK Memorial in Atlanta has anything to do with the content of a recent Political Lunch episode.  Be different if they did a memorial episode which talked about King’s legacy. Again, cats aren’t thinking. Of course, like Clinton above, you didn’t mean any harm – but, we don’t get it:

3) And, this isn’t related to the 40th Anniversary of King’s assassination, but it’s another one of those moments where we have to school our Caucasian friends: would you, please, stop rubbing our heads.  It’s not cool. Black men are not your pets.  You know what we’re talking about – many of us grew up with the subtle, paternalistic and racially coded insults.  Many still do it.  To date, we have not seen President Bush rub the heads of any of his other male and White Cabinet secretaries. Even though HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson (shown below) is on his way out after resigning amid corruptions probes, we can see why many Black Republicans like him are having issues:

 

 

McCain’s Shady History on MLK …

This is why we think, generally speaking, it’s in really bad taste and disrespectful to use the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a political prop for campaigns.  On this day, you will have certain candidates who will do just this, or you will hear surrogates and supporters make outlandish comments like “If King were alive today, he’d be endorsing _____.”  That’s just foul.  Props to ABC News Jake Tapper for keeping it real in this recent Political Punch piece:

Tomorrow Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., will honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by speaking in Memphis on the 40th anniversary of King’s assassination.

He will no doubt sound a bit different than he did in April 1987, when McCain was interviewed by USA Today about his five and a half years as a P.O.W.

Most glaringly, McCain as a young congressman in 1983 voted against a federal holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Most Republicans in the House voted for the holiday (89 voted for the holiday, 77 opposed), though all three Arizona House Republicans were opposed. Reps. Dick Cheney, R-Wyoming, and Newt Gingrich, R-Georgia, voted for the holiday. (Cheney had voted against it in 1978.)

In December 1999 McCain told NBC’s Tim Russert, “on the Martin Luther King issue, we all learn, OK? We all learn. I will admit to learning, and I hope that the people that I represent appreciate that, too. I voted in 1983 against the recognition of Martin Luther King….I regret that vote.”

The holiday went into effect in 1986. Only 27 states and D.C. honored the holiday that first year. Activists in state after state tried to prevent it from being recognized.

In Arizona, a bill to recognize a holiday honoring MLK failed in the legislature, so then-Gov. Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat, declared one through executive order.

In January 1987, the first act of Arizona’s new governor, Republican Evan Mecham, was to rescind the executive order by his predecessor to create an MLK holiday. Arizona’s stance became a national controversy.

McCain backed the decision at the time. But eventually he changed his mind.

National Black Republican Association MLK ad. Over the top?

… we’ll let you be the judge.  But, this gives more fuel to the popular notion that Black Republicnas aren’t doing a whole lot.  HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson’s recent resignation amid growing probes of his alleged contract steering and partisanship as a government official doesn’t help.   

Press release from last week from the National Black Republican Association (NBRA):

NBRA LAUNCHES MLK BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

NBRA Press Release – March 24, 2008
Contact:  Frances Rice
1-866-905-6701

The National Black Republican Association (NBRA) launched a new phase of its nation-wide educational campaign by putting up the group’s first “Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican” billboard in Orangeburg, South Carolina, just off of exit 145 of I-26 that has a daily traffic count of 60,000.

“The billboard is located at a busy intersection where DOT signs direct traffic to Columbia and Charleston,” said NBRA Chairman Frances Rice, “and it is attracting a lot of attention. We welcome the opportunity to explain why Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.”

“Of interest is the fact that Orangeburg is the hometown of black Democrat Jim Clyburn who is the majority whip for the US House of Representatives,” Chairman Rice noted.  “We hope he appreciates our informing his black constituents about their civil rights history.”

A picture of the billboard may be seen below and more information about the NBRA is at:  www.NBRA.Info/