Obama, Indiana and the tough Clinton Moma

[JW Frogen]

Obama needs to win Indiana. If he does it is really over for Hilary.

This is far more important than North Carolina a sate that will be given to him on the back of the black vote.

Indiana can prove he can win older voters, and male, white working class. And he needs to prove that if he is going against McCain.

Obama has been compared to Robert Kennedy in 1968. Both men used soaring rhetoric and the vague promise of change to win.

But Robert Kennedy had the same problem, many in the party believed he could not win writ large, because of the white, working class votes.

Robert Kennedy proved he could, that he could connect with them, and he did so in Indiana. (He cynically played a law and order message there, and did not talk of civil rights. Still, one can not survive win the world of politics, or even in the world without some ability to use cynicism.)

This is when the party grandees said to themselves, we have a winner here.

Still, my personal view is that we live in a tough world.

Obama’s holier than thou vote for me because I can chant the word “change” is not enough to give him the role of leader of the free world.

Hilary’s determination, and yes ability to use any tactic available to her to survive, reveals just the sort of tenacity and intelligence required to deal with total Hobbsian powers such as Iran, Russia, and China.

Still, it is only John McCain who can combine both idealism with courage to deal with power reality.

Obama poses as some sort of political messiah, but messiahs do not fare well in the real world.

I want a leader, a real man. Or real woman. One who can face the tough strategic choices a brutal world poses.

Not pretty picture and a dust jacket from Operha’s book club.

[freediver]

I feel sorry for the Americans, that they are stuck with first past the post voting. Apparently both McCain and Obama support IRV, so it would be a real tradgedy of Clinton got in.

[JW Frogen]

Actually the current system disadvantages Hilary, most Dem primary states use a proportional system, she has a slight lead in the popular vote but little chance of catching up in the elected delegate count.

http://jewishworldreview.com/michael/barone042808.php3

"One thing many people haven't noticed about Hillary Clinton's 55 percent to 45 percent victory over Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary is that it put her ahead of Obama in the popular vote. Her 214,000-vote margin in the Keystone State means that she has won the votes, in primaries and caucuses, of 15,112,000 Americans, compared to 14,993,000 for Obama."


If the Republican winner takes all system had been used, she would lead in both.

[freediver]

So how does the count work? That article you linked didn't give a useful explanation.

[JW Frogen]

The article does explain how it counts the popular vote, each state determines is rules on delegate apportionment in the Democratic Party, most states use a proportional system based on population of Congressional districts.

Where as most of the Republican primaries were winner takes all.

The point here is that Obama is slightly behind in the popular vote, even more so if the critical states of Ohio and Florida were not disenfranchised (I think a critical weakness for the Dems in Novemember, as it puts both states in play, the Republicans can argue the Dem nominee is not representative of the Dems in those states), and this bolster's Hilary’s argument to the Super delegates that she should be the nominee, in particular as she is winning all the crucial big states, and Obama has yet to reveal he can pull the crucial older and white working class vote.

His elitism and blunders with the "God, guns and bitterness", combined with a hyper-racial sensitivity (seeing racial slights where there are none, with his Grandmother, who agrees with Jessie Jackson, some black men on the street inflict fear) and no racism where there is racism, Reverend America is always wrong Wright hurts his ability to pull this critical group.

[AiA in Atlanta]

Has Edwards endorsed a candidate yet?

[JW Frogen]

Yes, John Edwards.

I think Edwards is biding his time, in the true fashion of a heroic leader, to see who will take the nomination, then he will endorse just before the graffitti is sprayed on the Democratic wall.

That and he is busy doing a lot of legal work to save up for his next haircut.

His wife however has said she prefers Hilary.

That, according to Obama's wife, makes her a racist. Afterall they are the ones they have been waiting for, if one is not waiting for them it must be racism. No one could possibly legitimatly disagree with or distrust Obama the messianic man.

That would be herasy.

Now, if Obama's wife prefers Obama is she a sexist?

Liberal indentity politics gets so confusing.

[freediver]

Looks like Clinton has finally lost, which is good news. She was stooping to baiting the public with lower petrol prices, which are already lower in the US than most developed countries.

Hopefully Obama will do something about electoral reform.

[JW Frogen]

Politicians tend not to like to change the electoral forms that saw them elected in the first place.

I think a lot of his reform will be foreign policy based, experimental, and hopefully not catastrophic for democratic, Western interests.

Despite his rhetoric, Obama has shown little willingness to cross the isle on big issue, (he has one of the most Left voting records in the Senate), and this is a stark contrast to the maverk McCain who challenges his party all the time. On BIG issues, like immigration, torture, campaign finance reform.

Hilary, I think will hang in long enough to try and get Obama to give her the VP slot.

This would unify the party, but it would also damage his hokus pokus magic act of “change, change, change” seeing as she brings a lot of old political baggage with her.

Obama’s attack on McCain (and so far McCain has really been the transcendent candidate, loath to attack in the old form of politics) will be he is simply four more years of Bush, Obama will run against Bush.

And Obama will chant youth and change (ideas the Romans would have thought laughable) to contrast him with the age of McCain.

How will McCain counter this?

I have no clue, but my guess is he will go for the courage and authenticity argument.

Substance over style.

[freediver]

Politicians tend not to like to change the electoral forms that saw them elected in the first place.

I agree with this, which is why I'm surprised both candidates will at least support it in principle. I suspect the real change is going to be more on the local level where principles can win out a bit more easily and where voting methods will have less effect because people are voting more for the individual rather than an ideology. Plus, it's easier to make it a local election issue, thus forcing their hand. That's where the change is already happening, albeit slowly. I'm not sure whether this even registered as an issue with the American public, but it will help the reform organisations promote their cause by giving them more credibility.

That being said, a president can only sit for two terms, so they have less to fear from major reform undermining their re-election.