McCain's Insane Tax Plan

I have to wonder what this campaign would be like if there were different nominees from the parties. I have to think that Hillary would be up on McCain as least as much as Obama, but would have moved into the lead even earlier. The real difference would be with the Republicans--had Mitt Romney been the nominee, the GOP would have been in much better shape to argue that their candidate is the one who understands the economy and could fix it.

Or would they? Romney lacks the popular touch even more than McCain. However, McCain's age works against him through the comparison with the youthful Obama, which would have been more neutralized with Romney. McCain doesn't exactly connect with voters--support for him in large part stems from unease with Obama. That same unease would've worked for Romney, but other than age I don't think Mitt would've been a much better nominee even given the financial mess.

And then there's the Huckster. The only other viable Republican nominee, Huckabee has what the other two lack, which is the common touch. It would have been a dangerous comparison with Obama from the Democratic perspective. Huckabee could have smeared him on the Rev. Wright stuff, and been able to bring it up again and again without really bringing it up.

I was prompted in the direction of these wild what-if speculations due to McCain's tax cut proposal yesterday. What a disaster. For a campaign that I had so much respect for strategy-wise prior to the Ides of September, their stock has rapidly declined in my mind. McCain should have opposed the bailout. This would have given him what he lacked and what he was vulnerable on--a populist appeal. He could have done it with conservative bona fides, since a lot of the GOP base opposed it.

The whole reason Palin was picked was precisely for an injection of the popular touch. But Palin, like McCain's strategy in the last four weeks, is a gimmick. All McCain's trickery has turned his campaign into a laughing stock. And now this--his response to the financial crisis is a capital gains tax! Unbelievable.

I don't care if it's right. I don't care if it is sound policy. This is not college ECON 202 class. This is a presidential campaign, and a capital gains tax cut does nothing for McCain's campaign. Nothing, but give Obama a gift complete with wrapping and a red bow. It fits the stereotype of McCain being out of touch, flailing around with his proposals, and in the tank with Bush big-business policies. That's a stereotype that McCain needed to work against, not comfortably slide into.

McCain had his chance on the economy to rally disaffected voters, and he chose the safe route. This is why he's down and will probably lose.

McCain hates Obama

We've seen it before.  Hillary (and Bill) Clinton's rage and disbelief over Barack Obama's candidacy did them no favors in the primaries.  Rule Number 1 is "don't underestimate your opponent," and the Clintons were a textbook example.  You need to hate your opponent in any contest (e.g., sports) in order to get motivated to beat them, but it has to be that right mixture of hatred, fear, and contempt.  If one of those elements is out of whack, then there's trouble.

McCain seems to be falling into the trap of too much contempt.  "How can this young'un be on the same stage with me?  With me?" McCain seems almost to be asking himself.  And it comes out in various ways.  Byron York has the rundown on it today.  McCain was trying to be funny in his "that one" comment in the debate.  McCain really doesn't have that good of a sense of humor.  His contempt for Obama seeped out a little there.  After the debate he *looked* like he didn't want to shake Obama's hand.  So what if he had already?  He looked like he didn't on TV.  A Freudian slip, in view of all the voters.  

This really was the only interesting thing in a boring debate.  Obama's line in these debates has been "He's misrepresenting my positions."  McCain's contempt seems to validate this to people.

Hillary's Speech

The first part of the speech was Me Me Me! But then: "Were you in this campaign just for me?" A litany of sob stories, "All the people who feel invisible." Builds to a climax, inspiring... and then "no limits" with tepid applause. "Fight to put a Democrat in the White House." Obama comes secondary to an anonymous "Democrat."

I don't think this is good enough. She's not effusive in her praise. She's just repeating Democratic lines, which could apply to her just as much to him.

Then comes the praise of Obama. "He knows that government must be about we the people, not we the favored few. When he's in the White House he will" blah blah blah "We did it before with President Clinton and the Democrats."

Clintons first, then Obama, who happens to be a Democrat.

"I can't wait for Obama to sign into law a health care plan." Smiles. Obama on Iraq. Barack will do this, Barack will do that. What about him as a person? Praise him!

She praises Michelle and Biden. "He's pragmatic, he's tough, and he's wise." Sheesh, why not him for president? No character praise for Obama.

Then attacks on McCain. We need more than the last four years. "More war and less diplomacy. More government where the privileged few come first." Good red meat stuff. Obama still is invisible.

America is great. Democrats are great. Obama is a Democrat, so he must be great. It's an inference, not a testimony that Hillary offered.

She spoke with passion about the women's movement. Hardly pumps people up for Obama, except by an inference. It was stirring. "Keep going! I have seen it!" "In America, you always keep going!" Hillary was really rolling at this point. It was a great speech. People were emotional.

"That is our mission, Democrats! Godspeed!"

Nothing about Obama. Absolutely nothing. She might as well have not mentioned his name, ever. Her fourth sentence, "I am a proud supporter of Barack Obama," is not worth a whole lot in my book, despite the pundits.

Hillary could have done a lot more for Obama. But Clintons always put Clintons first.

Obama in WVA?

The front-page story in the Wheeling Intelligencer today is about how great Obama is doing with fundraising in West Virginia--more than double McCain's.

Obama lost to Hillary 67-26 on May 13th. What a drubbing! The article says Hillary outspent him 3-1 in the state, but that's a misprint. Obama massively outspent Hillary and still got creamed.

Can Obama win WVA? A couple polls show him narrowing the gap. In February he was down 53-35 to McCain in a SurveyUSA poll, and a Rasmussen poll a month ago showed it to be 45-37.

WVA is not on my list of swing states. It has five electoral votes, and went for Bush 56-43 in 2004, and also in 2000, 53-46. It's an uphill climb for Obama.

Israeli view of the election

I've been out of the loop with my travels, and am eager to get back to US election news, since Obama has sewn up the nomination finally (limping over the finish line) and Hillary is set to make the big speech in a couple days dropping out.

It has been interesting talking to Israelis about the election during my stay. They pay a lot of attention to it. "It's more important for Israel than the election of the Prime Minister of Israel," was one comment. All the reports about Israeli views are correct, in my experience. They were rooting for Clinton. They are very wary of Obama. Why? Because he has an Islamic background, and he does not understand the situation the west faces against the threat of Radical Islamic terrorism. Israel is on the front-lines of that struggle, Europe is next, and the US is the rear guard. They were happy with Obama's speech to AIPAC. "He knows he has to flatter us to win." They would much have preferred Hillary. "I feel like this is a family reunion," said Hillary to AIPAC, which was played on Israeli radio.

The view is that the Iraq War was a wasted effort, because the real threat is Iran. Iran must be confronted militarily. That is the hardened position. Obama might not do this, which is worrisome. But the Iraq War was bad because it was a distraction from the real threat, Iran. If the US won't attack Iran, Israel certainly will.

McCain won't win a blowout

McCain is losing Mark McKinnon. He had pledged to leave McCain's campaign if Obama was the Dem nominee. I speculated in February that it might be because McKinnon saw McCain's campaign as a sinking ship that might be able to beat Hillary, but not Obama. Who knows the real reason.

But is Obama the strongest nominee? I've been arguing that Hillary would have an easier time in the general because of her strength in Appalachia. Hillary of course won Kentucky this past week 65-30. Obama won Oregon, 59-41, and passed the majority mark for pledged delegates (that was the headline). The people in Appalachia really don't like like Obama. But voters elsewhere really don't like Hillary. One is tempted to say that the Democratic contest is one between which candidate you dislike the most.

But that's actually not true. A lot of people had negative impressions of Hillary, which along with her October 2002 Iraq vote gave Barack an opening. But both candidates were very strong with very committed supporters who prefer their candidate. And prefer does not mean "hate the other guy/gal."

It might seem like that with the results in Appalachia going against Obama, but as I've emphasized before, those were primary election results, and you can't generalize from them to November. The Politico today has an article on a McCain "blowout" being contemplated by Republicans. It's based on current polling. But of course you can't generalize from polling in May to November. Plus, it's all based on the idea that McCain is stronger than the Republican party, which everyone agrees is in shambles.

In short, I think that Obama is a very strong general election candidate. There is certainly an argument to be made that Hillary is stronger, and I've made it, but that is all based on the leap from primary results to general election results, which is actually a tenuous one. Though it certainly does seem likely that Hillary would have a better chance of winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, this doesn't mean that Obama can't win them. You just can't generalize that. That is not what the primary results mean.

If the primary results in Appalachia meant, "I don't like Obama and won't vote for him in the general," then that would be one thing. But they don't mean that, they mean that between him and Hillary Democratic voters preferred Hillary. But that is meaningless for a general election against McCain with all voters. It's two completely different situations.

The exit poll results reveal otherwise: 41.7% of Democratic voters in the Kentucky primary said they would not vote for Obama in November, and 39.43% of Democratic voters in the West Virginia primary said the same. That reveals a strong level of dislike. However, it's dislike in the current context of a heated primary race. Things will be very different in November, as the sources in the Politico's story admit.

In a heated primary race I'll say that I won't vote for the other guy/gal in the general. But the general election has not be framed yet. When McCain is in the hot seat rather than the Democratic candidates, it'll be another story. That is to say, when it's a contest between a Republican and a Democrat, it's a completely different animal.

And memories are short. What we have here is precisely the situation McCain himself was in a year ago. In the summer of '07 McCain's campaign tanked, and everyone was seeing the negatives with it--trying to win over Republican voters with issue-positions they disagree with. As with Obama now--his negatives with Appalachian voters resound strongly. But he has time to deal with them, like McCain did. And he doesn't have to beat Hillary Clinton in the general, he has to beat John McCain. The comparison's the important thing. McCain has an edge on Obama that he wouldn't have on Hillary, but that's an edge now, not an edge in November.

The NYT reports of dissatisfaction of Republicans with the disorder of McCain's campaign. It certainly seems like it's falling apart at the seams, with lots of advisers leaving. But this could be a strategic housecleaning, as the Washington Times points out.

McCain's campaign contradictory

Peter Beinhart said this morning on Washington Journal that the Republican brand is tarnished, and that the long campaign, with the generation of excitement and infrastructure in so many states, has helped the Democrats. Mike Huckabee said the same thing about the Republican brand being tarnished on Meet the Press yesterday. NPR reported this morning on how Republicans are running twenty points behind Democrats on every issue ("Who do you want running the economy, etc."). But McCain is running ahead of the Republican brand. Was McCain a really smart choice by Republican primary voters?

Bill Kristol had a column in the NYT praising McCain's "exceptionalism." He's exactly wrong. I called into Washington Journal last week to make just this point. What's happening right now is similar to what was going on back in October of last year, when it looked like Hillary was edging out Obama and starting to become "inevitable." What happened then? Hillary stumbled in a debate over a question about illegal immigration. Her campaign put out a silly press release bashing Obama wanting to be president in Kindergarten. There was an overdone media frenzy over a hostage crisis in one of her campaign offices. Obama was outspending Hillary in Iowa, and she was losing ground, ultimately finishing third there.

All of this was nothing, however, compared to the real reason Hillary is going to lose the nomination. And that is her October 2002 Iraq vote. That is the big contradiction of her campaign, and she could just not overcome it. Obama exploited it to the hilt.

The contradiction is this: Vote for Hillary, she has experience. On the number 1 issue of the day, Hillary had a vote, a chance to weigh in when it counted, and she blew it. But vote for her; she'll be ready to lead; she has experience.

It's internally contradictory. Anytime you are trying to make an argument in politics it has to make sense. You can't paper-over a glaring contradiction on an issue people care about. You can emote, you can ask for forgiveness, you can say you're sorry, and that is really the only way to do it. I believe it was the YouTube debate on the Republican side in which Romney was asked about his position on abortion. He began with this: "I don't know how many times I have to say it, I'm pro-life." What a terrible response. Impatience with the audience, with voters, for not believing him that he's had a super convenient change of heart on an issue that the constituency he's after cares about. That was the time to emote, to show his sincerity, to sell his change of heart. Romney might have lost the nomination with that answer. Huckabee killed him by exploiting this contradiction in Romney's campaign--he was supposed to be the conservative candidate, but his record didn't support that.

It was the same way with Bush's Social Security reform plan. "Social Security is in a crisis; it won't be there for young people. We need to spend huge amounts of money to make private accounts." Well, if it's in crisis, then why spend so much money to change it to something different? And if you're in crisis mode, why not focus on Medicare which is in worse crisis?

McCain's argument for the presidency is internally contradictory. He trumpets his foreign policy experience. But he's been in favor of the war all along, and by any measure the war has been a disaster.

In a a speech in Columbus on May 15, McCain said this:

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.

"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted," Mr. McCain told reporters. This has to grate on anyone who's payed a modicum of attention to the disaster in Iraq. McCain will lose because his argument for why he should be president doesn't make sense on the most basic level. What if the economy was a bigger issue than Iraq? McCain said last December, "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." No, national security is all he's got. And it's internally contradictory. The reason McCain isn't hurting right now is that the attention is off of him, and he's benefiting from that.

In other news, following up on my post on electability in the general election, the Miami Herald has this report:

Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac University's Polling Institute, said Clinton can cite recent polls to bolster her argument as to why she should be the nominee. A Quinnipiac survey earlier this month showed Clinton leading McCain in Florida (49 percent to 41 percent), Ohio (48 percent to 38 percent) and Pennsylvania (51 percent to 37 percent).

The same survey showed Obama leading McCain in Pennsylvania (47 percent to 38 percent), but in a statistical dead heat with him in Ohio and Florida.

Also, The Politico reports on the DNC's new website McCainPedia, which includes opposition research and video footage of the Republican candidate shot by Democratic activists.

Hillary a strong general election candidate, Obama a realigning candidate

First of all, the stunning special election in Mississippi's 1st district. In the last two elections the Republican won with over 70% of the vote, and Bush won 59% in 2000 and 62% in 2004. But yesterday the Democrat won by 8 points. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said this: "For the first time in more than 30 years the Democratic Party has picked up three Republican seats in special elections in one cycle. The NRCC broke the bank and spent nearly 20 percent of their cash on hand on a ruby red district."

Now to the blowout in West Virginia. It's clear that Hillary is the strongest general election candidate. And here's why--she wins Appalachia. The second picture above show's Hillary's wins in dark blue (from Jay Cost who got it from Sean Oxendine). You can mentally fill in the white West Virginia cutout with a lot more dark blue.

The Democratic candidate needs to win these states. The swing states are pictured in the top map. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia are in Appalachia. If Hillary wins these states and Arkansas, then all she has to win is New Hampshire or Wisconsin (both of which John Kerry won in 2004), to be elected president. The path to the presidency is pretty clear for Hillary if she wins Arkansas and Appalachia.

Without Appalachia it's difficult. Kerry came 19 electoral votes short. Adding to what he won without Appalachia (and Arkansas) would mean either winning Florida (Kerry lost by 5%) or a combination of Iowa (7 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 1%), Missouri (11 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 7%), Colorado (9 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 5%), Nevada (5 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 3%), or New Mexico (5 electoral votes, Kerry lost be 1%).

This means, hold all the states that Kerry won, and then go on and win the three states in which Kerry got close (Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada), or get the bigger but tougher states Missouri or Colorado. That's definitely more of an uphill battle if you are Obama. Hillary's path to the presidency is much, much easier.

Yet Obama's probably going to be the nominee. Which might not be such a bad thing for Democrats long-term. New voters coming into the fold is always a plus, and young people are identifying with Obama. He did the better with them than any other demographic group last night in WVA (save those with "some postgraduate study"). Obama's the candidate of the future, Clinton the candidate of the past. Obama's the candidate of inspiration, Clinton's the candidate of short-term political calculations. At least that's the image.

There's only one answer for Obama: add Jim Webb to the ticket.

Tack away from your weakness

Here's the schedule:

May 13 West Virginia--28 delegates
May 20 Kentucky--51 delegates, Oregon--52 delegates
May 31 DNC bylaws committee meets to decide fate of Florida and Michigan
June 1 Puerto Rico--55 delegates
June 3 Montana--16 delegates, South Dakota--15 delegates

Obama is ignoring Hillary and acting like the primary race is over, and that's the subject of this story from the Politico. What is going to happen when Hillary whomps him in West Virginia tomorrow? I guess there's no good way to manage expectations. The media have been pushing this idea that the contest is over, and not incorrectly, but it is also true that Obama and Hillary are basically tied, with Obama having a small lead in the endgame. "She missed by an inch, not by a mile," as democratic strategist Steve McMahon said on Morning Edition yesterday. By emphasizing that Obama will be the nominee, the headlines help Hillary because tomorrow's result will seem to surpass expectations.

Meanwhile the two presumptive nominees need to get their acts together. Of Obama, Doug Shoen writes this:

Exit polls in Indiana and North Carolina show clearly that fewer than 60% of white voters believe Mr. Obama shares their values. In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, only 45% of the American electorate said they can identify with Mr. Obama's values, compared to 54% who say they can identify with John McCain's values.

The reason for this is perfectly straightforward: Michele, Bittergate, and Wright. Shoen concludes that Obama needs to start wearing a flag pin, in an all-out strategy to prove his true-blue Americanism. I absolutely agree. There's not a moment to lose for Obama. He should go out of his way on every occasion to talk about how he loves his country. McCain is going to hammer him on this. It's the only thing McCain's got, but it is a huge advantage.

The Jeremiah Wright matter really hurt Obama in Appalachia. I'm listening to West Virginia Public Radio and a woman just said she's so turned off of Obama that if Hillary doesn't win she won't vote for Obama, sheerly because he must share some of Wright's views. She wasn't the only one interviewed who expressed such sentiments.

There's time for Obama to move beyond Michele, Bittergate, and Wright. But he needs to get on with it. I've been talking about the alterization strategy against Obama since early March. What I don't understand is why the campaign doesn't move aggressively on this front. If you know the line of attack you will face, why don't you do something about it sooner rather than later? It's the same with Huckabee failing to deal with talk radio and his religious marginalization, or Hillary failing to deal with Obama's edge in not voting for the war. If you know what the problem is, you need to act to deal with it. But it's different with candidates who don't really want to be president (the Huckster?), and Obama needs to start wearing that pin now and repeating that he loves his country to anyone who'll listen.

But back to Hillary and the war for a second. This is the reason she is losing/will lose to Barack. I praised her Iraq strategy in early August of '07 and again in late September. The idea was not to have any kind of big apology moment where she would take back her October of '02 vote on the war, but rather move her position to the antiwar side over time. OK, that's a good idea if you underestimate your competition. And I think it's clear that Obama was underestimated. He was underestimated by me first and foremost. But that Iraq vote gave Obama a major opening, and he took it to victory. What's the lesson here? That you can finesse a position or a speech but not a hugely important congressional vote. That's why it's so hard to become President as a Senator.

McCain has loads of votes that will be picked apart, Obama much less, giving Obama a major advantage in the general. Mitt Romney aide Kevin Madden said yesterday on Washington Journal that McCain can win because he consistently outpolls Republicans. David Yepsen repeats the "most electable" mantra. Karl Rove wrote this last week in WSJ:

Mr. McCain is very competitive. He is the best candidate Republicans could have picked in this environment. With the GOP brand low, his appeal to moderates and independents becomes even more crucial.

But is this true? Does McCain's vaunted appeal to swing voters make him the strongest candidate Republicans could have nominated? McCain has won elections in Arizona by 56% or more for over twenty years. His appeal in presidential politics definitely lies with swing voters and weak Republicans, based on 2000 and 2008 primary results. But inferences for general elections cannot be made based on primary results. Everyone assumes that McCain will appeal to swing voters and independents in the general election. Rove feeds this perception. But we simply don't know that this is necessarily true. The independent vote in primaries is not the same as the independent vote in the general election. Independent voters in primaries are less motivated by policy, it seems to me, and more motivated by candidate personality and backstory. McCain has the straightalker image and a great backstory, so he wins these voters. But swing voters in general elections are another animal. Are they primarily swayed by personality and backstory? Of course they are, to some degree. But there is something else which dwarfs this, I think. And that is "nature of the times." If things are going well, the "direction of the country" question which is constantly being asked, then you stay with the incumbent. If not then you kick the bums out. The 2006 election was clearly a nature-of-the-times election. Why won't 2008 be as well? In that case McCain's got big problems, because the economy and Iraq are not getting any better, and McCain is tied to the incumbent president on both of these.

McCain needs to break with Bush. I thought McCain was beginning the Big Tack back at the end of March. But since then it hasn't seemed to go anywhere. He's tried to shore up his base a little, giving a speech on the judiciary last week. He tried to make light of his connection to Bush on the Daily Show, also last week. But it's thorny, as you can see on this video. He's going to have a much harder time with his tack than Obama.

Obama the nominee

The pundits are all saying that Hillary is finished, and the pundits are right. Obama's close loss in Indiana means that he'll be the nominee.

What's interesting is the power of the pundits, the gang of 500. They all assume that Hillary's finished, and that is an insuperable obstacle to her remaining in the race. A die-hard Hillary supporter could well complain--why do the elite chattering few control what happens? The voters should decide! It's an excellent point. Obama is not going to get to 2025 with pledged delegates. But this is old news, and of course what happens is that it goes to the superdelegates, and this is why it's really the arguments of the chattering class which matters.

And of course the pundits are right. After weeks of taking a pounding, Obama still comes out strong. The bad headlines he's had, the bad debate, the bad Meet the Press (the first half-hour was painful), voters stuck with their candidate.

What does this tell us?

The first thing might be the importance of election rules. Indiana was an open primary, unlike PA which is closed, and OH which is semi-open.

The second thing is Gary county, which is basically a suburb of Chicago. They saw all the Obama news stories throughout his political career.

The third factor is Marion county (Indianapolis), which has a high black population (24%).

And the final factor is erosion in Clinton's support among key demographics (notably white women and Catholics).

One might say that Hillary's team did a poor job of managing expectations. But this the fourth quarter, and you can't spin a point deficit when there's seconds left on the clock. They needed a big win, not better spin.

Perhaps we'll save the Clinton retrospective for a later date, but what a lousy campaign they ran. What was the message? It morphed from one thing to the next, ending up with this populist candidate for the working-stiff image. Basically, Hillary was willing to tell anybody what they wanted to hear in order to be president. Obama is similarly a power-hungry political actor, but he had a message: Unity, Hope, a Candidate Above It All.

Obama should have debated, though. Now there will be enormous pressure when Obama debates McCain, and memories of the PA debate will be dredged up. Obama could have put that behind him by debating in Indiana. Smart short term that he didn't, perhaps, but not long-term.

But Obama's been through so many grueling debates that he's ready for McCain. This is another advantage for the Democrats of having a drawn-out primary season. They end up with a candidate who's vetted, who throws out the garbage in April rather than October, and who's battle-tested. You don't get that with a coronation. I don't think you can say the same for McCain. Everyone's talking about the disunity of the Democrats. But that's because it's excited, spirited disunity. The disunity of the Republicans is just as strong, and it's a dispirited, disappointed disunity. McCain got barely half Obama's vote in Indiana. Over 20% of Indiana republican primary voters voted against him.

So the people who accuse Hillary of dragging the Democratic party down to the mud are way off base. It's stupid to say a candidate who is so close to a nomination should drop out. Things can change so radically overnight, and as a candidate it's all about hanging around, hanging around, until everyone else drops away. To say "you can't win, drop out" when the contest is going on is like telling the KU basketball squad that they should have sent in the subs with thirty seconds left in the final game.

Plus Democrats should want Hillary to stay in, as Mara Liasson said on NPR yesterday, Hillary is going to win West Virginia and Kentucky, even if she drops out, which would be embarrassing for Obama.

Karl Rove made an interesting point in his parsing of Obama's speech. He warned about Obama using the phrase, "We're going to tell the truth." Rove is right. Don't promise what you can't deliver. Truth-telling is the last refuge of failed candidacies. Obama shouldn't be claiming to be the straight-talker delivering uncomfortable truths.

Obama should debate

Carl Leubsdorf writes that by refusing to debate, Obama is intent on "running out the clock":

Outwardly similar to Ohio and Pennsylvania – where she scored recent notable wins – Indiana's electorate is younger and less Catholic and includes Republicans and independents. A Clinton win there would be a further warning sign about Mr. Obama's appeal beyond his base of liberals and minorities.

In this circumstance, Mrs. Clinton's requests for debates in Indiana and North Carolina may find a receptive audience. While most pundits suggest that the public is sick of debates and believes the issues have been discussed thoroughly, that makes the mistake of viewing this more as a six-month national campaign than a series of one- or two-week races.

Now is when Indianans and North Carolinians are paying attention. What happened before may be less relevant to them.

Mr. Obama might be right politically in trying to run out the clock. But that strategy could leave him vulnerable if the unexpected occurs and he lacks a high-level forum in which to respond.

Clinton challenged Obama to a one-on-one debate a week ago:

“What I think the people in Indiana deserve is a real one-on-one debate, where Sen. Obama and I discuss [the] issues.... Unfortunately, Sen. Obama has not agreed yet, and he’s turned down every debate that has been offered. So here I have a proposition my campaign sent his campaign today. You know, after the last debate in Philadelphia, Sen. Obama’s supporters complained a little bit about the tough questions (awwwwwww heard in the audience). You know tough questions in a debate are nothing compared to the tough questions you get when you are president.”

Clinton challenged Obama, saying, “And they complained about the moderators asking tough questions. So here is my proposal: I’m offering Sen. Obama the chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. Just the two of us going for 90 minutes asking and answering questions. We’ll set whatever rules seem fair. I think it would give the people of Indiana -- and I assume a few Americans will tune in because nearly 11 million watched the Philadelphia debate, and I think they would like seeing that discussion. Remember that’s what happened during the Lincoln and Douglas debates. Now we have had like four debates between Sen. Obama and myself.”

We've never had this in American presidential politics before. The candidates have always insist on moderators. This means that they have not really been debates. In a real debate, you can ask your opponent a question. But in presidential politics we have had only sham debates, with moderators who can be blamed for lousy questions.

Think about it. The moderators could, from Obama's perspective, engage in scummy dirty gotcha questions for the first 40 minutes of the Constitution Center debate because they are moderators. They're just journalists, totally unaccountable when compared to politicians for whom every vote matters.

But if Hillary had taken the low road for a full 40 minutes, well, there would be consequences. There would be backlash. So she wouldn't do it.

Instead we would have a debate on "issues." What would this look like, a debate without moderators? It would certainly be on a higher level. The two would have a vested interest in looking like they get along, and are in a common quest for a better America. This would be unlike the Lincoln-Douglas debates, which were between politicians of two different parties.

The format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates would be interesting--a long speech by one candidate, followed by a long speech by the other, followed by a response from the first candidate. But in today's television age there would have to be give and take. Who's quickest on their feet? Clinton's behind, so she has everything to gain from debating, which is why Obama doesn't want to.

It would be good for the Democratic party to have such a debate. And it would be a great precedent to set for American politics.

Obama looks like an elitist snob

Right now, all the news stories are on Clinton's side. An AP poll out today has Hillary with a comfortable lead over McCain, while Obama ties him. SC Gov Mike Easley is endorsing Hillary. Obama has to endure all the Pastor Wright coverage.

Jay Cost has a wonderful post on Obama's problems in Appalachia. This is troubling for Obama-backers, because the Democrats need to win these states (and their electoral votes): Ohio (20), PA (21), West Virginia (5), Arkansas (6), and Missouri (11). John Kerry won only PA, and fell 19 electoral votes shy of taking the White House. Ohio would have done it for him. But so would have a combination of the other three: Missouri (where he lost by 7%), Arkansas (where he lost by 9%), and West Virginia (13%). Al Gore, who also won PA, would have won with any one of those states.

Obama has a big culture problem. He's getting hammered right now as an elitist snob. The article I cited yesterday also said this: "Obama is a Harvard-trained lawyer. Clinton went to Yale. Both pitch their economic message to middle America, but it’s often Obama who attracts college-educated, affluent voters and Clinton who pulls the working class." The same article had a picture of Obama playing hoops. This was what I suggested he do a little while back.

It's a clubby ivy-league elite that runs this country, and it's in the Appalachian culture trait, derived from their Scotch-Irish political culture, to be at odds with this Eastern establishment. To win these voters you need to get off your high horse and at least look like you are one of the people. If Hillary Clinton wins this primary election, she will have an enormous advantage in the general election, because she will automatically appeal to this group. She's their candidate; they voted her candidacy to victory.

This is a plus that was not at all obvious for Hillary going into this race. If she had sweeped to victory, she would not be as strong of a general election candidate as she might be if she eaks this thing out. She'll have a built-in appeal to just the group she needs to win in the general, which is precisely the group with which she seems like an awkward NY liberal.

Obama has not learned the Bush lesson. The Bush lesson is that you move to Texas, buy a ranch, acquire a Texas accent, and strain every nerve to appear as one of the people. Then everybody forgets your uber-privileged blue-blood background. Obama didn't have anything handed to him, so he doesn't see the issue with elitism. But as Karl Rove said in Newsweek: "It's not where you start in life, it's where you end up."

Democrat advantage in the general

On Meet the Press Sunday, Howard Dean stated that he wanted the nomination battle ended by June. He stated that it takes about 3 months to stitch things back together. July-August-September, that's what the Dems need to come into the November election unified against the Republicans. "The only thing that's going to beat us is if we aren't unified," Dean said. That argument is persuasive--this is the Dem's year, but they'll be seriously hurt if this goes to the convention at the end of August. The reason the convention is so late is to jigger with campaign-finance rules that cut off fundraising when the candidate is officially nominated (if the party accepts the $70 million government handout, and both parties do). This could come back to haunt the Dems if it does go to the convention. Then McCain has a fighting chance. The Dems need time to shine the bright spotlight on McCain. McCain will wilt in that light. No doubts there. He's got a super-long record, and he will be hit hard by the Dems. But they need time. I had a fascinating conversation with a friend who is politically attuned this weekend, and he said that the key for the Dems in the general is to look like the nice guy/gal. If they can portray McCain as mean, then it's all over for McCain.

So how's the campaign looking? "It's essentially pretty much a tie" right now, Dean said. The superdelegates want to wait things out. They are simply in no position to tell Hillary to leave the race.

Now that Hillary's security-blanket Mark Penn finally got the ax, Bill Clinton is serving as Hillary's de facto chief strategist.

Only primaries are left. So Obama's advantage in caucuses is neutralized.

Fox News: "All seven remaining states on the primary calendar fall below the U.S. average for household income. The average in West Virginia is the second lowest in the country."

Obama is still likely to win if it comes down to superdelegates, according to a statistical model. But you don't need a statistical model, but just common sense: the superdelegates simply don't want to disillusion the new voters Obama appeals to, as well as black voters. So the lower-classes that are voting for Clinton will get the shaft. But they will come back and vote for the Democrat, if the Dems can make the case that McCain is just more of the same. The Dems have a great advantage in the general in that they can just attack a very unpopular president, with a bad economy and an unpopular war, which the Republican is identified with. Bush did this in 2000, attacking Clinton, even when Clinton was all that unpopular and the economy was better and Gore distanced himself from Clinton. The Dems will have a *much* easier time doing it with McCain.

The electability argument

The Democratic race is basically a tie. Obama has won more delegates, Hillary has won more votes (if you factor in Florida and Michigan).

So what it comes down to is the argument each candidate makes. Everyone assumes that Obama has the stronger argument, as Robert Novak is reporting today. That argument is, I've won more delegates, so I get it. And you're not really going to deny a black man who's won more votes--because if you do the anger of black voters will ruin your chances to win in November.

Hillary's argument is that she's more electable. The problem is that there is a gigantic jump from primary results to general election results that you just can't make. Uber-blogger Jay Cost makes this point even as he meticulously breaks down Obama's weakness with lower-class white voters. Analyze all you want, but it's not meaningful to draw conclusions for the general election.

As Carolyn Lochhead reports:

"I've been there," [John Edwards campaign manager Joe] Trippi said. "Walter Mondale won all kinds of states against Gary Hart in 1984. Ronald Reagan beat him in every state but one, his own. I've never seen any argument that something you win in a primary means you're the lock on winning it in the general."

In Virginia at least, Obama is probably right, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, who said the state harbors a distaste for the Clintons.

In Pennsylvania and Ohio, "McCain has a chance to do against Obama what no other Republican could probably do against any other Democrat, which is win," Sabato said. "She's right about those two key states. She's wrong about most of the others."

What matters is the 13 states listed as battlegrounds this fall, said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a centrist Democratic think tank once closely allied with former President Bill Clinton.

Throwing out Florida and Michigan, which had flawed primaries, Obama has won six swing states (Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado and Iowa) to Clinton's five (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico and New Hampshire), leaving Obama with more potential electoral votes.

Clinton's strength among working-class whites, Rosenberg said, is based largely on women, not necessarily men.

Pinkerton notes that Republicans would hammer Clinton just as hard as Obama, exploiting her own rich history and high negative ratings in polls.

Pinkerton argued that Clinton's apparent strength among working-class whites is a mirage based on a small subset who vote in Democratic primaries.

"She's not going to carry blue-collar workers against John McCain," Pinkerton said. "No way. She'll get creamed."

So Clinton's strength among lower-class whites is more with women, not men, and white women were a whopping 46% of the PA primary electorate (to 33% of men). Hillary got 68% of white women and 57% of white men. But these are a subset of the population--Democratic primary voters. Voters in a general election will not be as favorably inclined to Hillary. Lower-class voters without built-in sympathies with Hillary, based on being a committed Democrat, will be susceptible to Republican persuasion. So while she might do well with this subset, including winning white men, there might be a big drop-off for her, particularly with white men, in the general.

But we just don't know. It's impossible to tell. That's the fundamental flaw of any electability argument based on primary results.

A co-presidency?

Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama last night in PA by 8.6%. The way this was reported makes a big difference--it was reported as ten points last night and this morning. Psychologically that's a lot bigger than 8.6%. If it had been 7 points all night and then crept up to 8.6, it would be a different story. Eight points is in the gray range, vulnerable to calls to step down, while ten puts Hillary above her critics.

Hillary's victory speech was exhilarating. She is the comeback kid for a third time. She's a fighter, and had this amazing line about "The American people deserve a president who doesn't quit." It's hard not to sympathize. When Barack attacks Hillary, he runs into a double trap--Hillary can gain sympathy as a woman, plus it tarnishes Obama's golden-boy image. That image has lost some of its luster. He outspent her 3-1, at least according to Hillary last night, and started attacking her a little bit (about half of the polled voters said he attacked her unfairly, with two-thirds saying the same of Clinton).

At this point Hillary desperately needs cash. If she doesn't get the money, she has to close up shop. Candidates bow out when they run out of funds, as Brownback said bluntly to the first question at his news conference dropping out of the race. Hillary was on Good Morning America this morning begging for money, sounding really excited about all the donations "flowing in," and giving the web address, etc. etc. etc. It was almost verging on pathetic.

So it's entirely possible that Hillary will run out of dough and be forced out of the race. But at this point the candidates seem tied. And I have to mention an idea that's on my mind.

Why can't the two of them agree to be co-presidents? Hillary would be president (since Obama's young enough to have his own eight years in office after Hillary's two terms). Obama would be vice-president. But Hillary would handle domestic policy, and Obama would handle foreign policy.

The response that comes back is, "What experience does Obama have with foreign policy?" Well, that's true. A veep choice of Jim Webb would be better for either of these candidates, to shore them up on it. Yet no one is really prepared to be president when they get in, and Obama could "focus like a laser" on international issues, where he is seen abroad as being a big change in America's relation to the world.

The international situation is so important right now that a VP slot and a foreign policy portfolio would mean major power, and set him up for future presidential runs of course. Could the two of them work together? Perhaps things would get really strained, and Hillary as pres would always have the upper hand. Obama thinks he can win this thing outright, so he's unlikely to accept it.

I'm intrigued by the idea, and interested in what others think.

What will happen in PA

I blogged about the debate last week before I read or heard any reactions to it. I was surprised by the high level of negative response from the punditry. Dick Polman had a scathing post on Obama's performance that was very convincing. His point was that Obama failed to win over the conservative Democrats that he needs to win in higher percentages to cut into Hillary's lead. Very convincing. Almost.

I know that perceptions are shaped by media reactions to things, but this vote is so big that I don't see Pennsylvanians being swayed so much by Obama's supposedly dismal performance. It was bad in a number of respects, of course, but for reasons that are more relevant to superdelegates worried about McCain picking off lower-class white voters in November.

And here's the reason why: this is an extraordinary moment in American history. People are desperate for something different, and Clinton represents the politics of the past, while Obama clearly represents the future.

By a coldly realist standard, everything in the preceding paragraph is bunk, but nevertheless it is the aura the Obama campaign has successfully wrapped itself in. And it is going to triumph in the end. If this were a normal election year, it would not (which does not spell good news for McCain). But the perceptions are that things have gotten so bad that normal is out the window. Obama has been able to rally young voters, who normally are complacent. I didn't think he could pull it off, but he has.

It's been basically a 6-point gap for the last three weeks. I predict Clinton by six. That's enough for her to continue in the race. But it's not enough. She needs another 9-10 point victory as she did in Ohio. If she doesn't get it, with Obama seeming like the underdog going in, the story will be on his inroads with white voters.

Bill Clinton event in western PA

I just came back from an event with Bill Clinton in Western PA. It was interesting; I got to sit up front in the third row to the left of the stage, and got to shake his hand afterwards. The county executive gave the introduction, with a speech "he came up with today in the bathroom" according to my friend who was next to me. The crowd was maybe 600 people, students and union members; it seemed kind of small in the big arena. I thought the response was surprising tepid. Clinton didn't have the crowd eating out of his hand or anything. He looked tired. There were big bags under his eyes.

He was an amazing speaker though. He only made one mistake the whole speech though, which he quickly corrected, and didn't say "um" or "uh" once. A dollar for every "um" and "uh" between Hillary and Barack and you could balance the federal budget. Everyone came away convinced that this guy would blow away Barack in a debate. "I would vote for him in a second" was one response. The event was at a university, a demographic more enthusiastic for Obama. Clinton had the pulse of the place he was at, getting the name of the University's president right, and understanding the nature of the institution and referring to it several times.

The introduction focused on economic issues, and that's how Bill began his speech, quickly abandoning the podium for a wireless microphone in his right hand, pointing his finger with his left hand for emphasis. After a short time on the economy he talked for an extended time on Iraq. It was powerful stuff, on how bad the situation is. The audience was very responsive. He said she promised "if conditions don't change" to bring home the troops in the first 16 months.

He was able to articulate very well why leaving Iraq will be better for the Iraqis. He had a homespun metaphor about going to the dentist. "What will it take to get the Iraqis to make the hard decisions?" he asked. "They have to decide how to divide up the oil wealth." It's tough, and we always want to put off tough decisions. "People don't make tough decisions until they have to--why do you think the dentist's office always makes you schedule the next appointment right away?" he said to laughs. "I'm 61 and I still don't like it when they put that needle into my gums!" Only a timeline for withdrawal will force the Iraqis to get their act together.

He talked about leaving a contingent in the north "to fight al-qaeda." That surprised me, since "al-queda in Iraq" is not exactly the same as al-qaeda that did 9/11. He was basically going along with Bush's position about the importance of fighting al-qaeda in Iraq. Why is that? Leave a contingent in the north--is that to protect the Kurds when we leave? Ended up talking about the harm to the troops, bolstered by the recent RAND study. This resonated with the audience.

He spent a long time talking about energy independence. He was really pushing this idea of a cheap hybrid car. Technology will solve all our problems. The same way with health care--just eliminate the paperwork and use the savings to pay for care for poor people. It sounded nice. It resonated. Yet the remarks were not a totally a frank assessment of what a european-style health-care system would mean exactly. But of course that would be too frank, and politicians are constrained by the receptivity of the American people, and have to work in increments.

The response on energy independence surprised me. A lot of enthusiasm when he was talking about this. "A hybrid car would mean that we could tell the oil sellers: 'Charge $100 a barrel. Heck, charge $200, or three.'" The audience was also surprisingly responsive when he mentioned finding an answer to the Israeli-Palestinian question--it got a big cheer.

Clinton praised his wife for "biting the bullet and talking straight" on the issue of trade. Said there was problems with NAFTA, and that we cannot enforce trade agreements with countries that are our bankers. "Would you go to your banker and slug him in the face?" "Would you buy a car from a dealership that violated the warranty on your last car?" Homey analogies for a complex international issue. Not as huge responses from the crowd on this stuff.

Not a syllable said about fighting terrorists. This is still in the air, of course; Obama just had a soundbite on the air this morning about fighting the important war in Afghanistan. But there is a shift in the public's mood. I think the Republicans will find it harder to play the national security card in the general.

They will also find it hard to play the typical managing-the-economy card. Bill played heavily to the need for a balanced budget "and investment in our future." Tax cuts for the wealthy were decried. Super-rich tax evasion was decried. "Never in our history has so much money rained down on so few people in such a short period of time."

The end fo the speech was him warmly praising Hillary. How much she cares, how experienced she is (that was a theme throughout). "If I wasn't married to her, I'd still be supporting her as the most qualified candidate for the presidency we've had in a long time." At the beginning of the speech he said she was "more qualified that I was when I took office." It was a little bit strange. Like Obama not just coming out and saying-like-he-means it, "I love this country," Bill didn't just say "I love Hillary so much." Of course, this would lead people's minds to the wrong chain of connections perhaps.

PA Debate Reflections: Hillary Has Become the Anti-Obama

The Philly Constitution Center was a good venue for this debate, perhaps the candidates' last. Everyone kept quiet and the timing was relaxed--a breath of fresh air. With people sitting around in darkness it looked like the Galactic Senate from Star Wars.

Obama spun his "bitter" remarks as "not being properly phrased." He talked about reaching out to people of faith, which he says he does more than other campaigns, and of the support of sportsman in his state, "because he listens to them." Interesting turn of phrase--not because he supports the gun-control policies that they do.

Obama brought up the "baking cookies" remark of Hillary on the '92 campaign trail. A perfect example of how a long track-record bogs you down (as if Hillary's Iraq vote wasn't enough proof). Then he ripped into Hillary for not learning the lessons of Republican attacks and doing the same thing. Pretty good stuff. "What the American people want are not distractions," he said. The old way of doing things, he is against all that. He constantly brings everything back to his message of old vs. new. What discipline. You have to think this is why he's probably going to be the nominee. What's Hillary's message? She's become the anti-Obama! The opposite of what everyone thought would happen, which is that she would be the front-runner and there would be an anti-Hillary candidate challenging her. Obama's done a great job of not falling into that. "Vote for me, I'm not her" is not a winning mantra--you have to be for something to win. Obama is for something, Hillary is flailing around seemingly for only herself. This is the campaign's fault, Mark Penn's fault. She defined herself as a "fighter" going against the special interests. This is a loser-ball tactic (though I'd be singing a different tune if 269 people had changed their minds in Florida in 2000), at least as opposed to Obama's appeal to unity.

Hillary was on the defensive and halting in her response to Obama, and she sounded like an echo to his plea to "get things done" rather than playing politics. She did a little better perhaps on the next question on Rev. Wright, but again Obama looked like the front-runner.

On the Bosnia question, Hillary took another hit. She had no good answer to Tom Rooney, the everyman who asked the question via prior interview. She basically said "I lied, sorry!" Seemed like a pretty big admission. She turned it back to her experience as an advantage. At the end her emotion seemed like "Whew!" She was glad that was over.

Barack then hit it out of the park again, managing to seem like he was nice to her ("She has a wonderful record") when he really wasn't ("She wouldn't be here if she didn't") and again turning it back to "this moment of our history." He looks like the visionary, the leader, while she's stuck in the past with the old Clinton ways. Obama has really mastered the art of running against a woman. He seems courteous, gentlemanly, all the while his flaks are ruthlessly destroying her credibility. Except for the one bad "you're likable enough" he's done a A+ job. McCain is getting pointers all over the place. You can just see him staring at the TV jotting things down.

On the other hand, Obama flopped on the "do you love the flag" question. "I can't help but love this country." Not a good response. Where's the passion? This isn't academic--say you love the country, don't give an argument why people should infer that you must love it.

Hillary got a laugh-line with her suggestion that Republicans not run anybody at all, and just apologize for the Bush years. She was very direct in saying that Obama will have trouble running against McCain. Her baggage "has already been rummaged through." Obama: "I've showed that I can take a punch. I've taken several from Sen. Clinton." They weren't debating here to a PA audience, but to the superdelegates. Jay Cost has a great post on this, the real race.

Both were strong on the Iraq question. They were a lot more comfortable talking policy than personal stuff, when they each are halting and too deliberate. Same thing on taxes. Two Democrats preaching fiscal responsibility--Bush has made things so easy on them.

Also on taxes, they played a clip from McCain bashing Obama. Hillary laughed, and that brought the viewer's attention to her, and blurred the fact that McCain was speaking about Obama--without her laughing, everyone would have looked at Obama's reaction on the screen, and it would look like he would be the likely nominee, at least in McCain's mind.

The gymnastics on gun control were fun to watch. PA is a big hunting state, the NRA lobby has a lot of influence, and you had two candidates trying to appear to hold the direct opposite of what they have always held.

Meanwhile McCain's campaign has the freedom to portray an honest, open, tell-you-how-it-is candidate through town-hall meetings. The virtue to this is that McCain doesn't have to worry about running against someone yet, and can focus on building up his own image, running a positive Huckabee-esque campaign. And fundraising for an McCain smear-job has fizzled.

McCain is going to run on his personality. The Democratic nominee is going to run on policy. And the election will be heavily influenced by the environment--how Iraq is doing and how the economy is doing. If both are fine McCain will have a chance.

Obama's Comments Redux

According to a Quinnipiac poll today, Hillary has a 6-point edge on Obama. That's a lot closer than the 20-margin I mentioned yesterday; this one shows that she's slowing his ascent in PA.

A reader commented on yesterday's post about Obama's statement being completely true, and not condescending. All this could be perfectly true, but this blog has been devoted to Henry Adams' quip, "practical politics is the art of ignoring facts." If candidates came out and said what they thought was true, they'd be toast.

Take Huckabee, for instance. His base would rally around him every time he would say something that was aimed at them, but by doing this too much he boxed himself in as a factional candidate lacking broader appeal. So while his base thinks what he says is totally true, it is still a mistake for him to say it.

Obama's statements were very harmful to his candidacy and will haunt him for some time now. The reason is the context.

Obama exudes the air of a smart Harvard-trained thinker. Now that's certainly a liability with a whole lot of voters. It is not a liability at all for the voters Obama has so far attracted, namely well-educated higher-income voters. But for lower-class voters a different style is attractive--President Bush's style. Bush beat Kerry because of voters without college degrees voting for him, and because he did well enough with low-income voters to pull out a narrow victory. Bush's style was mocked, but it was electorally effective.

Taking Obama's demographic appeal and style into account, we can see that he needs to win voters who are naturally more skeptical of him, by appealing to them through his campaign. A friend mentioned to me: "Obama smokes Marlboro Reds, for crying out loud! He should take that back up!" He also said, "Obama's a great basketball player--he should be out there playing basketball with people." I'd endorse both these ideas. Smoking is frowned upon in modern-day America not primarily because it is a health issue, but because it is a class issue. The upper classes frown on the dirty habits of the lower classes. What better way to show you're a regular guy than start smoking again? Obama should do it, the anguished cries of "What an example for our children! Humph!" being an opportunity for a Sister Souljah moment, and perhaps a chance to portray Hillary for the schoolmarm she is. Basketball too--at least, it's better than windsurfing, which nobody can really identify with.

Given that Obama needs to broaden his base to just the type of voter he was speaking about in him comments, his description of them is completely condescending. He's portraying their voting decisions as riddled with bitterness, their issue concerns a result of frustrations of being on the losing end of the market. If you are going to appeal to people by talking about their problems, you'd better make sure they identify with you as one of them. Otherwise it's just somebody coming in from the outside telling you you're all screwed up, and they've got the fix. Not very appealing.

Barack's gift to Hillary (and the Republicans)

The bloom is off the rose. Barack Obama's seemingly effortless protean political skill to make people read into him their hopes and desires has hit a major roadblock. Obama made this remark at a fundraiser in San Francisco, which was captured on tape by a blogger:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. 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."

The carnage followed instantly. Then came Obama's response while campaigning in Indiana:

"I was in San Francisco talking to a group at a fundraiser and somebody asked how’re you going to get votes in Pennsylvania? What’s going on there? We hear that it's hard for some working class people to get behind you’re campaign. I said, 'Well look, they’re frustrated and for good reason. Because for the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shipped overseas. They’ve seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare. And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said 'We’re going to make your community better. We’re going to make it right' and nothing ever happens. And of course they’re bitter. Of course they’re frustrated. You would be too. In fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up -- they don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington. So I made this statement -- so, here’s what's rich Sen. Clinton says ‘No, I don’t think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack’s being condescending.’ John McCain says, ‘Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he’s obviously out of touch with people.' Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain -- it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch? Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I’m out of touch? No, I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania. I know what’s going on in Indiana. I know what’s going on in Illinois. People are fed up. They’re angry and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington and that’s why I’m running for President of the United States of America."

Then to Steelworkers in Pittsburgh:

"Senator Clinton and Senator McCain seem to be singing from the same hymn book, saying I am out of touch and I am an elitist because I said a lot of folks are bitter about their economic circumstances," said Barack Obama. "Now, it may be that I chose my words badly, it is not the first time and will not be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom spent decades in Washington, saying I am out of touch, it is time to cut through the rhetoric and look at the reality."

Yikes. The cure is worse than the disease. When making a major blunder, don't make it worse by accusing other people. Just apologize and be done with it. That's hard to do. It's hard to accept that you're not really a golden boy who never makes mistakes. But this thing would go away a lot more quickly if Obama had issued a short apology, rather than a lengthy, rambling diatribe about how he's in touch. It sounded very condescending, proving Hillary's point rather than rebutting it. The whole "it may be that I chose my words badly" baloney compounds the problem.

When you are misquoted as a politician, you have the right to complain. But when you make a mistake, you should not play it off as someone else's fault. At least, not in the blinding glare of the presidential spotlight.

This is why it is so silly for people to say that Hillary should drop out because she's only got a 5% chance of winning. No one can calculate that. No one can know what can happen tomorrow. One day Obama's tied things up in PA, the next he makes this comment and falls 20 points. And that's exactly what happened. Hillary has been waiting what probably seems like a lifetime for her for this slip. Obama simply hadn't made one to this point. The bloom was still on the rose. Hillary could raise question after question, and insinuate that Obama is a gamble of a candidate (or come right out and say it's a roll of the dice, as Bill did), but nothing seemed to stick. This will stick. It will haunt Obama for the rest of the campaign. It plays right into the hands of Hillary and McCain.

In short, Obama has pulled a Huckabee. Huckabee was never able to break out of his base of voters in states where he didn't have a lot of time to campaign--that is, everywhere but Iowa. It was a vicious cycle--he had to appeal to his base for votes and cash, yet that only boxed him in more as a candidate who lacked broad appeal. He really made no effort to break out of this box, as I comment in this post from mid-January.

Obama has put himself in a box now. It was the box others were trying to put him in, and it's the box he fits into but wants (and needs) to transcend. That's why this is such a huge story. It fits a narrative for Obama, as well as portrays him as a certain kind of person (aloof, arrogant, cerebral).

It is the perfect disaster, really, in that it turns all his positives into negatives. In politics your strong qualities can also be liabilities, and your liabilities can be turned into positives.

• Obama is the unity candidate, rising above the petty partisan squabbles. Now he's up there and looking down at us and we realize how disconnected to us he is, uncaring, condescending.
• Obama's a candidate who can inspire people. Well, he can't inspire just the type of voter the Democrats need to win.
• Obama has a broad appeal. Yet now this appeal seems based on the fact that he doesn't believe in anything, and is able to say anything to attract support. If he said what he really believed he would lose support.
• Obama is super-smart. But now he's an elitist who distrusts common folk.
• Obama speaks his mind and doesn't lie and fudge like the Clintons. Not now; he says something way different in private than in public.

In every respect it's a disaster. Hillary's got a greater than 5% chance now. If she wins by over 20 points in PA next week, how could she be denied the nomination?--that'll be her argument.

Obama's statement was worse than a crime; it was a mistake.