What does Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania mean?

I was taking a few days off when the long-awaited Pennsylavania primary took place, now that I'm back in the thick of things and as I listen to the political pundits, I wonder about the interpretation of Clinton's victory on Tuesday. 

Let's first say a few words on the breadth of her lead over on Obama. A month before the primary, the Senator from N.Y. was way ahead of her opponent in the polls, probably by more than 20%. As the campaign progressed, Obama managed to narrow the gap but he has not managed to close it completely. There has been much talk about this: 

-  does this mean that he does not have what it takes to win overwhelmingly the support of the working-class whites (a critical majority of Democrats in Pennsylvania as well as in Ohio, which Obama also lost to Clinton in March in a very similar scenario)? 

-  did he suffer from his comments on the "bitterness and clinging attitude" of the Pennsylvanians? For the debate on class that has followed read the Lexington column in The Economist.

-  should we see it as a proof of Clinton's strength? 

Only one thing is certain : the show goes on. Next stop : Indiana.  

After spending three weeks lowering expectations (at first they were counting ona double digit lead and she then claimed that even a small lead would prove that her candidacy was extremely strong since she had been out-spent one to three by Obama), Clinton now claims that this is a decisive victory and she is trying to use it to push her agenda : seating the Florida and Michigan delegates at the convention. This would allow her to argue that her pledged delegate count is extremely close to Obama's. In so doing, she will try to present the final result as a virtual tie (= a quasi tie ) and thus make her I-have-experience-and-am-electable case to the superdelegates and allow them to support her en masse without seeming to disregard the so called popular vote. This is the only solution for her to win the nomination.  

This is an entertaining and somewhat relevant critcism of the campaign rhetoric of Clinton : 

In the first segment Hillary Clinton's speech is compared to the character Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck (an excellent novel in which the Depression is not only the backdrop but the central theme of the story. 

Did you notice how the Clintons and their supporters are wooing the superdelegates and insisting on their special position as arbitrators and moderators, more capable of making the right decision for the party.

Meanwhile on the Republican side, John MacCain is already campaining in the South and he has been touring African-American areas, he has been refining his economic policy package. The Democratic fight is providing him with a unique opportunity to get ahead in the national campaign.

What's the "bitter-gate"?

Pennsylavania will be voting on April 22 and the stakes are very high for Obama and Clinton. Although Obama has the lead in delegates, Clinton might have a the shadow of a chance of making a comeback if she proves very strong in the last primaries and manages to convince the superdelegates that she is a stronger candidate to send to the November election.

Not much had really been going on lately but a massive row has emerged after comments made by Barack Obama during a private fundraiser in California became public. 

He said that many Pennsylvanians had lost out on the recent economic boom and for the last twenty years local industries have been in decline, and jobs have been lost. "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations".  

This short quotation has been commented over and over again since April 5. To most, Obama sounded elitist and seemed to be looking down on working class whites who were religious, pro-gun etc..

  Some have said it should be understood in the wider context of what Obama said that night. 

Hillary Clinton has used it in an ad targeted at this much sought after voting block : the white working and middle class Pensylvanians ( visit the French blog on the American presidential elections to see the video)

The controversy goes on and people start wondering about Obama's candidacy. Listen to what Mitt Romney, one of the former Republican candidates for the nomination had to say for instance : 

Dan Schnur, a former advisor in John McCain's 2000 campaign, has just published an excellent commentary on Barack Obama's remark. This is an excellent analysis of the underlying assumptions that inform comments on the seemingly non-strategic support of the Republican Party by blue-collar workers.

This is basically how Dan Schurn's argument runs : 

Left-wing commentators have often presented the fact that the white working class usually voted for the Republicans as something that needs explaining : Republican economic policies are most often not going to better their plight so why do they vote against their "class interest"? Why does middle America make their choice on social issues such as abortion, gun rights and same-sex mariage? For the Democrats this choice makes no sense. 

Are they being lured into voting on those issues instead of on health care and economic policies by manipulative Republican demagogues? Or is it because, unbeknownst to the Democrats and the educated elite, people really care about these issues and are not obsessed with their economic hardships? Are the Democrats being so blinded by their liberal bias that they forget to question their own values and only try rationalise the values of others. 

The full article is really worth reading and appears to me as the best commentary on what the "bittergate" reveals about the Democrats. 

Clinton under fire.

Dear students, 

It's been some time since I last posted on the blog, I've been quite busy with my research project recently.

This is only a very short summary of what's been in the news lately. 

Clinton has been ridiculed for her overblown account of a visit to Bosnia. She was making a point on her foreign policy experience and credentials, she recalled landing in Tusla under sniper fire and running to cover. The media did some fact checking on this event and have since been running over and over again a video of the welcome ceremony on the airport tarmac : there was no sign at all of immediate danger, and even less of bullets flying in the air.

Here is a video from NBC presenting this event Followed by political analyst Tim Russert's comment on the state of the Democratic race : 

Of course, there is no end to the youtube mocking videos of this blatant exaggeration. But Hillary Clinton has tried to minimize the entire contreversy and has even joked about it. 

How can Hillary Clinton win the nomination?

Obviously she will need decisive victories in Pennsylvania (April 22), Indiana and North Carolina (May 6) and the following contests ( West-Virginia, Nebraska, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Montana and South Dakota). However it is virtually impossible for her to be ahead in pledged delegates (people elected by the Deomcratic grassroots to sit and vote at the convention) when the primary season ends mid June, due to the proportional distribution of delegates in the Democratic primaries. If Clinton wins most of these contests she will be able to claim momentum and victory in some of the essential "big states" and she will narrow the gap to a virtual tie. In that case she can really make a claim to the super-delegates.   

Indeed, the only way she can win the nomination is by garnering a significant majority of the 800 or so  super-delegates (party members and elected officials who automatically get to sit and vote at the convention). 

But to do so, she needs to convince them that they can and should go against the "popular vote", which is slightly infavour of Obama and likely to remain that way. Obviously this does not go down well with the Democratic voters who will feel disenfranchised if the party bigwigs decide of the outcome of the nomination regardless of their choice. The risk is that many of the Obama supporters (the young, the educated whites and the Blacks) will feel betrayed and decide not to vote in November if Clinton is the Democratic candidate, out of spite they might even turn to John McCain whose appeal to independents is undeniable. By choosing Clinton over Obama the superdelegates may well jeopardize the chance of the Democrats of taking the White House back from the GOP. 

However a similar argument might also work to the advantage of Clinton : the superdelegates should choose the most "electable", i.e. experienced candidate and she has tried to paint Obama as too inexperienced for the job, untested and offering huge potential for attacks from the Republican candidate, and all this might be true. The Clinton camp have harshly attacked  superdelegates that turned to Obama. A well-known Clinton supporter has accused Bill Richardson who endorsed Obama  last week of being a Judas. Isn't Clinton sending a strong message to the superdelegates who might be thinking of flipping : don't mess with us or we'll mess with you.  

The core issue comes down to this: what is the role of the superdelegates? 

Should they confirm the popular choice and simply give a clear majority to the candidate with the most pledged delegates in order to ensure a smooth convention? 

Or should they act as the Democratic wise men and take into account the so-called electability of the candidates and make their choice in conscience? 

Some Democrats have been calling for a mini-convention in June, where all the superdelegates would convene, discuss and make a choice. This would clearly put the decision making into their hands and would end the suspens and allow the winner to launch a national campaign against John McCain. Will they stand the pressure of making such a difficult decision under public scrutiny.  

For in-depth coverage on this issue : read or listen to NPR's coverage.