After being defeated in Ohio and Texas (Rhode Island was clearly going to vote for Clinton), the Obama campaign is grappling to find a way to respond to Clinton's attack tactics that seem to have paid off. The question is : do you have to go negative to win? Would that undermine Barack Obama's offer of a new way of doing politics?
Samantha Power, an Obama senior adviser on foreign policy issues, has just resigned after an off the record comment to a Scottish newspaper describing Sen. Clinton as "a monster". Moreover the Obama campaign has been recently caught twice being rather inconsistent :
- over NAFTA : Obama was launching a staunch criticism of the trade agreement to seduce voters in Ohio while one of his advisers was said to have been reassuring Canadian officials that this was nothing more than an electoral tactic (this is being referred to as the "Nafta-gate"
- over the plan to leave Iraq : the selfsame Mrs Power has said that Obama would probably not implement the plan to return the troops as he has advocated it.
A quick point on the Texas primary contest : you may have heard that Texas has both a primary and a caucus. The latter was won by B. Obama, which explains why Clinton's narrow victory should not be over-emphasized. Moreover the number of delegates per district is apportioned according to the way the state senate disctricts voted in the last elections : the disctricts which ovted most heavily Democratic in the last State Senate elections get more delegates than a district that voted strongly Republican. This system was considered unfair by the Clinton campaign since this gave a clear advantage to the African-American districts over the Latino districts which were perhaps more evenly split between the Democrats and the GOP and less electorally active.
Today the State of Wyoming is voting : how will this impact the momentum of Hillary Clinton : will it be reinforced or not?
Saturday, March 8, 2008
the dilemna for the Obama campaign
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
results : the Democratic race goes on
Rhode Island was called for Senator Clinton (58%) early in the night with Vermont going to Senator Obama (60%).
The results for Ohio were known later on and though the bigger cities had not been counted yet, Clinton appeared to have the lead which was later confirmed. As I write, with 92% of preccincts reporting, Clinton is ahead with 55% of the vote to Obama's 43%.
She delivered a victory speech in Columbus, Ohio. The crowd was deafenlingly enthusiastic all along and cheered her with the words "yes she will" offering a response to Obama's famous "yes we can". She reminded her audience that the candidate who became president had always won the Ohio primary : "as Ohio goes, so goes the nation".
She resorted to the familiar talking points against Obama : emphasizing her experience, her ability to lead and to pick up the phone at 3 in the morning and take the right decision !
She insisted on the historic aspect of her victory and of the 2008 campaign and she is saying that voters want their chance to count, suggesting that, regardless of the results in Texas, she would soldier on to the convention.
Barack Obama's speech last night was much more subdued and the crowd wasn't its usual roaring self.
Although all the preccincts have yet to report in Texas, the media are calling the Lone Star State for Hillary Clinton.
So what does this all mean for Clinton, Obama and the Democrats?
Is this a disaster for Sen. Obama? Actually it is disappointing but it will probably not make a huge difference in terms of delegate count. The Obama campaign projects that it will still be in the lead delegate wise. Remember that the delegates are apportioned proportionally in the Democratic primaries, which means that even if he loses the primary in a State, Sen. Obama may well be allocated a significant number of delegates.
What do Hillary Clinton's victories of last night tell us about the Democratic campaign?
First, this clearly shows that her candidacy is not quite as desperate as suggested by some commentators who were calling for her to step down. She is capable of energizing the voters who are sending at least one clear message : they want the race to continue.
Next, these victories show that Clinton is good at winning the big States. She has taken California, New York (she would probably add Florida and Michigan, although the DNC punished these states for holding the primaries early in the season). Does that mean that she has the best chances against McCain in November? Well, it seems unlikely that California and N.Y. would vote for a Republican anyway but would she be more able of winning Ohio (a bellwether State = one of the States that can be used as a national indicator) and Texas than Obama? One may doubt that, since Sen. Obama seems to appeal to independents and moderates more than Sen. Clinton does.
republican results : McCain clinches the nomination
Last night McCain has won enough delegates to claim for certain that he will be the nominee. As a consequence Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race.
Goodbye Mike :
In his victory speech in Texas, John McCain, made a broad call for Republican unity : congratulating all his opponents for the nomination.
He emphasized his love of America and his tough stance on terrorism and his support of the war in Irak despite the failing tactics used by the present administration.
He also criticized the Democratic stance on the war, mocked their criticism of NAFTA as a political tactic to seduce voters in clear disregard of the reality of a global economy, he rebutted the idea of more State intervention in health care and in the economy. Instead he offers to lower taxes to help the American businesses and citizens. He also implied that the Democrats were all about talking and not about listening, all about empty rhetoric and not about honesty. However he did lift the cliché Democratic line of the month : "we make history" !
He is neither firmly attacking Clinton nor Obama, thus acknowledging that the Democratic race is extremely tight.
Interview with Hillary Clinton
Jon Stewart starts by making fun of the campaign and mocking the idea that this could be the final showdown between Clinton and Obama. The Sentator from New York is then interviewed via satellite :
Monday, March 3, 2008
The Ralph Nader wildcard
Ralph Nader ran in 2000 and in 2004 as third party candidate, fighting for the enviromenment and against corporate interests and Washington politics. He has announced last week that he will run again. What does that mean for 2008? Will he have enough clout to make a difference? Who will benefit from his bid for the White House?
Ralph Nader is usually credited for handing over the presidency to George Bush by turning away moderates who might have voted for Al Gore in 2000. Democrats still rageously resent Nader for the past 7 years. Nader responds that it is certainly not his fault if Bush was elected : we should blame the Republican and Democratic voters in Florida, and the governor of Florida and the Supreme Court of the US for the "election" of George W. Bush.
In 2004, however his campaign was all but a complete failure. One may wonder whether he will be able to excite the voters this time around, when there are more exciting alternatives to his candidacy?
PS : the wildcard = le joker
decyphering the telephone ad
The media have been giving quite a bit of attention to the Clinton ad on the telephone ringing (watch the video on my previous post).
Commentator Maureen Dowd considers that Sen. Clinton is fear-mongering ( to create fear in order to convince people that you will protect them from the danger) and that ultimately the ad is a visceral attack. NPR's has been commenting on this ad in their overview of last week's events.
Even more interesting is the analysis by political commentator Tom Regan : he compares Sen. Clinton's contreoversial ad with the infamous "Daisy" ad for Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson which I commented earlier : the ad was only aired once before being pulled off the air because it was considered way too aggresive, painting Barry Goldwater as a trigger happy aggresive candidate. Do you remember that it was being used against the Democrats on youtube at the beginning of the campaign on order to make them appear soft on foreign policy issues. And now people are comparing Sen. Clinton's attempt to discredit Sen. Obama's competence in foreign policy. Interesting how things come a full circle !
For the Obama campaign this ad will probably backfire on Sen. Clinton : once again they emphasize judgement vs. experience : it's not your experience of the "red phone" ringing that counts, it's your ability to give the right answer. And he then goes on to remind voters of Sen Clinton's vote allowing President Bush to engage in the war in Irak.
I enjoyed West Wing 2008's post in French on this ad : Maria Pia Mascaro has 3 videos on display : Clinton's ad, Obama's ad in response and a short video of Bill Clinton telling the voters to respond to the candidate promising hope rather than fear!
Sunday, March 2, 2008
is the momentous day coming at last?
Will March 4 bring us any certainty on the outcome of the Democratic race for the nomination? Remember that Texas and Ohio vote, along with two small north-eastern States : Vermont and Rhode Island. Watch a video on the campaign in Ohio.
If Sen. Clinton looses both States she will probably be definitely out of the race : Bill Clinton has even asserted that she must win in Ohio and Texas for her campaign to be viable.
If she does manage a double win, which seems less likely today than two weeks ago, she will still be "in the race", albeit with little advantage on the delegate count front (unless she wins with a huge margin to make up for her previous losing streak).
The last possibility is : Clinton wins one of the big States and the other goes to Obama. The consequences on the race of this scenario are even more difficult to assess. Nobody has a clue where it will go from there.
Catch up with me on Wednesday morning : I'll be commenting on the results as early as possible.
A Clinton ad :
Obama's response ( the classic) :
On the Republican side the nomination of John McCain is now wrapped. The question is : how will he campaign against Sen. Obama if he happens to be the nominee. And indeed McCain has already launched a series of attacks against him, since he has emerged as the "front-runner", replacing Hillary Clinton, the Democrat that the Republicans love to hate.
If Clinton is the candidate, it will make it easier for McCain to unify the right against her. But if Obama is the Democratic nominee, McCain will have to fight for the moderate/independent voters to whom they both appeal significantly.
How far will McCain go to get the evangelical vote, a groupe of voters that he has repeatedly aggravated by insulting some of its leaders? Where will he find the vote if Obama is the candidate?
A commentator from the NYTimes wrote a column on how McCain's strategy against Obama was very similar to the one used by Hillary Clinton (all-talk, no-policy ; weak on foreign affairs; idealist; inefficient, veiled allusions to his race...). This line of attack might prove just as inadequate in the general election as it has prove for the last couple weeks.
A summary of the Ohio debate mentionned on the previous post :
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
