A new poll by ARG in Pennsylvania shows Obama down 20 in Pennsylvania, 57-37, over the weekend. It's a combination, the pollster says, of the "bitter" comment and voters getting sick of saturation Obama advertising that puts more emphasis on him than on them.
If this continues: Obama rose to the head of the Democratic pack as a guy who could unify across racial divides and across partisan divides. The Jeremiah Wright controversy made him a racial candidate again. The "bitter" comment put him right into the blue state - red state pigeonhole.
Is he on the verge of becoming just another polarizing Democratic partisan? Like, say, Al Gore? Or John Kerry? Or Hillary Clinton?
And, what is happening strategically? Obviously, Clinton sees a wound and is attacking. But she has always been of the view that this is not about who was right on Iraq -- it's about who is best equipped to fight a blue v. red war, to play the politics the Clintons helped create. She, of course, thinks that it's her.
If it all begins to pivot on this remark, the race will revert to form, a reprise of 2000 and 2004. Never mind that Hillary is playing the role of the Republican right now, trying to make that happen. In blue v. red, she's likely telling the superdelegates, you want me.
Comments (2)
Yes. How insightful of you to recognize that everything that Obama does is really all Clinton's fault. I think all the other pundits in the universe would really benefit from your amazingly original analysis. Wow!
I have always thought from the beginning that Hillary Clinton's numbers against McCain are a worst-case scenario with lots of upside potential while Obama's numbers are a best-case scenario with lots of downside potential, and that in fact, Obama is the less electable Democrat. Why?
Because Obama is more to the left on the political spectrum than Hillary, yet he has extensive support from Republicans and independents that came during a period of his campaign when specific positions have not been emphasized. McCain is perceived as relatively moderate, and unless all these voters have suddenly changed their philosophy to the far left, it is unlikely they will stick with Obama in the general election.
On the other hand, while many of Hillary Clinton's positions are very similar to Obama's, she is more moderate in a few key areas, and those areas could make her a more attractive alternative to McCain for moderates who care about energy and foreign policy, but do not like McCain's approach to the Iraq war. Much of the media criticism of Hillary is unfounded, and if the media would simply go back to the kind of coverage I saw of her Senate accomplishments and abiliity ot work with the other party which made me interested in her in the first place, she should be quite electable. Furthermore, now both McCain and Obama have adjusted positions to ones she held all along.
For those worried about her vote for the Iraq war, she also gave a detailed speech at the time which outlined exactly how to proceed to minimize the chances of going to war, and would ensure that if force were to be used as a very last resort, it would be with much more widespread international support. Noone should consider themselves well informed about her judgment without reading her speech. It shows the kind of thinking I would want in a president:
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html