An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

After Super Tuesday: Can a scrappy little team win it all for Obama?

Celebrating his near equality with Hillary Clinton after Super Tuesday, Barack Obama said in Chicago that there are many rounds to fight in the remaining fierce competition but “we’re turning out to be a scrappy little team.”

He will need every bit of brawl heading into contests in Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Maine, Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Wisconsin and Hawaii later this month.

Whatever his successes, his audacity of hope image may take a battering in coming months as the blood-letting with Clinton continues awaiting the final decision of their peers at the Democratic Convention.

Obama has a lot going for him. Even his website looks younger and more hopeful than that of his rival. But the vital question is whether he can face down Clinton and the Democratic establishment’s onslaught as she poaches on his terrain of youth and woos women voters more skillfully.

It will take much more than uplifting speeches to save him from being the candidate of black America, who is viewed with skepticism by Hispanic voters and is the butt of unspoken racism by middle and upper middle class whites.

When it comes to the crunch would a white couple earning between $50,000 and $120,000, who are happy to have a black man to dinner, be willing to marry a daughter to him? It takes that kind of trust, commitment and tolerance for whites to be ruled for the first time by a black man in the White House.

Obama’s broad strengths so far were his fund-raising and appeal to the youthful. These will slip quickly if
the economy tanks as expected in coming weeks. The economy might revive after the Democratic Convention but he will be history by then, unless he agrees to be Clinton’s Vice-President.

In any case, that would be a cold marriage of convenience despite the smiles and almost cordial talk both exchanged briefly on camera after the latest debate. Even as a principle, it is debatable whether he would be the right choice for a Clinton Presidency, specially with co-President Bill prowling unrestrained as the First Gentleman of the US.

The Clinton-Obama scrap restarted within minutes of the exit polls with her handlers claiming she should be seen as the underdog now, especially since Obama is favored by the “establishment”, namely Edward Kennedy. This turns facts on their head but that is how great makeovers begin.

Muck raking is also not yet discarded. Hillary mildly rebuked husband Bill for his dirty tricks that caused her discomfiture before Super Tuesday, but he is not off the payroll. When push comes to shove, he can still play the bad cop and “terminator” while Hillary pretends to be hands-off and claims plausible deniability. What’s the harm in being Billary if it brings results?

A great deal depends on whether Hillary can raise money efficiently. Recently her take totaled just one-third of Obama’s and she has had to loan $5 million of own money to her campaign. But prospects are mixed and she may no longer be the money magnet of the past, particularly before the Democratic Convention.

Whether money pours in for Clinton depends on the perceptions of the person-in-the-street, not on delegates and billionaires. The only real way of collecting big money now-a-days is to rake in small contributions from very large numbers of people.

At this stage, it is hard to see how she can succeed in exuding the warmth and idealism needed to appeal to small contributors and to recruit hordes of young volunteers to work the Internet, phones and door bells for her. Everything about her including the way she dresses communicates establishment and power.

It is hard to shake the fact at this time that Obama offers change we can almost believe in while she offers more of the old nostrums. She might make it if she whips up enough fear about the economy and stands tall as the savior of middle-income earners and small store owners.

She does still have a traditional base in the working middle class. They might respond to build her war chest if the economy goes south. But that is far from being a foregone conclusion.

The key to credibility lies in timing. If she stokes fear early, she may beat Obama but lose the Presidential poll because many experts expect the economy to start looking up after the summer. That would give the clear lie to Clinton’s eco-fear mongering and might bury her in November combined with her other flip-flop failings.

Clinton has a lot of plausible strengths. But she just does not have Obama’s appeal to the heart, no matter how many self-deprecating jokes she cracks or how much she tears up in front cameras. She comes across as a cold fish to Obama’s charm. And this fish has Bill the wiliest of sharks covering her back, while Obama has the slightly flaky New Ager Oprah Winfrey.

We certainly need the audacity of hope to contemplate all of this.

  • elrod
    Marrying white daughters? I thought I was reading an editorial from an 1868 newspaper for a moment. Race is obviously a major factor in this race. But Obama's 81% victory in Idaho - yes, Idaho, land of white supremacist groups - should dispel the notion that Obama cannot win among whites. In fact, Obama has enormous appeal among white men. He's witty, self-deprecating, and confident. For every white man bothered by voting for some negroid named Obama there are two other white men genuinely inspired by the possibility. I've seen that myself here in East Tennessee; most resistance comes from people who have no idea who he is, or from white women who like Hillary. Obama won 43% of white vote in Georgia, and 50% of the white voted under 50 years old.

    As for Latinos, it isn't so much that they don't like Obama but that they don't know him very well and they LOVE the Clintons. But notice that in Illinois Obama won Latinos easily because they know him there.
  • pacatrue
    Elrod said it much better. But we aren't still freaking out about Sidney Poitier in 1967.
  • joegandelman
    I do think there still are a lot of old unwanted attitudes out there that Obama and any candidates from minority groups have to deal with. It's not PC to discuss them so people assume they are gone. But remember the old saying "assume" makes an "ass" of "u" and "me." I agree with Brij...Obama can't assume anything and is in essence proving himself to new groups of voters every day. It's not nice to say the attitudes are out there...but I travel a lot and not just with blacks but with Jews and Hispanics I will say: these attitudes are indeed out there.
  • pacatrue
    I agree that they are definitely still out there, but I couldn't help but get the impression from the post that America was being viewed through a several decade old lens. When Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was done in 1967, the characters played by Hepburn and Tracy represented the majority of white Americans wrestling with the prejudices they didn't want to admit to themselves. That still happens, but it's certainly changed a lot since then in ways that are hard to capture. Maybe it's this: In 1967, white Americans really weren't sure it was okay to be in an interracial marriage. Now, I would hazard that most people think it's okay, but they sometimes encounter biases inside themselves that they wished they didn't have. I don't know.

    Elrod's point that Obama captured 81% of Idaho is a far more useful point.
  • I don't think it is as much the racial issue as it is the fact that the Clinton's still have control of the basic party structure.

    The race is going to go back and forth between now and June, but in the end the superdelegates will tip Clinton over the top.

    As far as the bad blood issue, Kennedy and Johnson, Johnson and Humphrey, Nixon and Agnew, Reagan and Bush, Clinton and Gore, Bush and Cheney. None of these teams were particularly friendly or close, some were quite hostile to each other.

    But a Clinton/Obama ticket is a strong possibility.

    And I wouldn't want to be in charge of the Secret Service details on that WH.
  • bitteroldhag
    Race doesn't seem to be a real problem for Obama. He carried a lot of white states. He is carrying very well educated people which is interesting because well educated folks may know something that that hoi polloi don't know. So we have an interesting situation. A lot of whites as well as blacks are voting for Obama. As a college professor, I can say that it is amazing that anyone can get young people to vote. I'm hoping that Obama can win despite the Clinton political machine because, even though I'm an old white woman, I'd like to see some change, particularly someone who knows how to compromise, and Obama has proven that he can work both sides of the aisle.
  • Jammer
    I really dont think Obama's team is "little." He has as professional, large and tough a staff as Clinton. "Scrappy litle team" is really a complete misnomer.
  • emilycarlson123
    Another Election Night Blunder - Emily Carlson
    Another election night, another wrong projection.
    Late Super Tuesday, the Associated Press jumped the gun, calling Sen. Hillary Clinton the Democratic primary winner in the state of Missouri.
    An hour and twenty minutes later, they withdrew their call. Another hour and twenty minutes later, the AP gave the state to Sen. Barak Obama.
    The blunder brings back memories of the 2000 presidental election, when the media declared Florida to Al Gore, then withdrew the call and awarded the state to George Bush, only to then declare the state undecided.
    The aftermath of the mistake was ugly. Democrats and Republicans alike were irate at the media. Many voters went to bed thinking Al Gore was the winner, only to wake up to see the state was undecided. The public couldn't understand how the media could screw up so bad.
    Eight years later, many viewers are still skeptical when the networks declare a "projection."
    There is no excuse for these kind of mistakes. The public looks to the media for the facts. They want to know the truth. When colossial mistakes like calling a state for the wrong canidate happen, the media's credibility chips away. Viewers don't forget when huge blunders are made, and it takes a long time to earn that trust back. There's really no excuse for it to happen again. This election could be the most watched/higest voter turnout in history. The media should be extra viligant to make sure the same mistakes don't repeat themselves.
    http://emilyacarlson.wordpress.com/
    http://emilyannecarlson.tblog.com/
    http://clearblogs.com/emilycarlson/
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC