Much more importantly, that Hillary was able to take three out of four, at this late stage of the race, puts to rest the idea that the whole country is moving towards Obama. As we've all seen in previous primaries, as the race continues, there is generally less contention. The party starts to identify a leader, people hop on the wagon, and support grows. Yet while the media and Obamaniacs have lined up to christen Obama the general candidate, and have started to talk Clinton down "for the good of the party," three states stood up at this late date and said, wait, hold on a second...
It does not end there. The next major state is Pennsylvania. Hillary has been polling strongly there, and with these three recent wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, her chances look even better in Pennsylvania, despite gubernatorial support for Obama. She also has a chance to do well in the neighboring states in between Penn and Ohio.
The Rezko trial is beginning. Articles are starting to come out detailing the scandal, and it does not look good by any reading for Obama. Clearly it wasn't a coincidence, clearly Rezko was trying to do Obama a favor — not so far-fetched in Chicago politics. And this will inevitably lead to the question of what Rezko was looking for in return for his favors. Any way you slice it, this puts a damper on the idea of Obama promoting a new kind of politics, and at worst might be illegal.
Then, we get to the touchy subject of Florida and Michigan. Should Hillary also win in Pennsylvania, the Democrats will be in a no-win situation. Hillary will push the issue, and the Democratic party will face the choice of alienating their constituencies in two key general election states, or inject mass confusion and bad blood elsewhere by holding do-overs. Lawyers will get involved. In terms of ugliness, this will make the 2000 general election look like a Playboy centerfold by comparison.
All the while, Obama's missteps, which were swept under the rug in time for Super Tuesday, are starting to get more attention. It's conventional wisdom that Obama's position of talking with Iran has hurt his credentials as a leader. His efforts to "rise above it all" have led to comments by some (leftist) pundits that he isn't very tough. Obama's excellent oratory, combined with Clinton's attacks, have worked to further the notion that Obama is a great speaker but not much else. Then there is the recent NAFTA debacle. And a more detailed analysis of both candidates' platforms indicate that the real policy differences between the two are minor or non-existent. At that point, why wouldn't you choose a candidate with more experience?
Article comments
1 - Jonathan Scanlan
Ya know, Clinton's was hardly a thumping victory. She's still behind in delegates with only a minor increase.
Not to mention that Texas was mostly 50-50. The problem may have actually been with the complacency of Obama supporters after the streak of victories, or even the last minute media frenzy he faced.
If that is the case... I don't think Clinton has much to look forward to. Might not be, but it is awfully reductionist to think it all comes down to negative campaigning.
2 - The Obnoxious American
I've never suggested that it does come down to negative campaigning. Nor does it really matter why Obama lost or by how much. None of this changes the pickle that the Dems now find themselves in, which is the point of the article, hence why two days ago was a "Super" Tuesday.
3 - Krutic A
Hey OA: Good to see you're enjoying this as much as I am.
The soviet style system and the hypocrisy of the Democrats is becoming more and more clear.
They are masters of shooting themselves in the foot and there are proving it again.
I always thought Obama would be weak on real attacks and he is. And like a dumbass he's made his campaign to stay 'above' the fray..well good luck doing that now. Now we'll see what he really is. Nothing more than a Chicago politician who will say and do anything to win.
4 - Greg
Barack Obama owes America an apology and can he deviate from his memorized canned speeches without putting his foot in his mouth?
As a presidential candidate Barack Obama proudly boasted that he was proud to be an American because "only in America can a black man (his father) from Kenya come to America and marry a white girl then go on to get a Harvard education".
He neglected to state that his father was a DEAD BEAT DAD who abandoned him and his mother early in his life. What kind of message does this send to dead beat dads? That it's ok to abandon your children or is the ethnic vote more important than abandoned children issues for his presidential candidate?
As I am child of a dead beat dad as well a single father with children I endured the hardships not having a father in my life as well as raising children without any support from my x-wife. I would not boast of the accomplishment that my x-spouse made for any reason and I found that statement to be a slap in the face for every single parent struggling everyday.
I quote the Chicago Tribune "I know he loved Ann," Abercrombie said, but "I think he didn't want the impediment of being responsible for a family. He expected great things of himself and he was going off to achieve them." Years later, Abercrombie and another grad school friend looked up their old pal during a trip through Africa. At that point, the senior Obama was a bitter man, according to the congressman, feeling that he had been denied due opportunities to influence the running of his country. "He was drinking too much; his frustration was apparent," Abercrombie said to Abercrombie's surprise, Obama never asked about his ex-wife or his son.
But worse of all he also neglected to state that it was his mother (the white girl) and I quote him per Chicago Tribune "the dominant figure in my formative years. . . . The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." Where is the truth and respect for the people who struggled to give him the opportunities he has had?
And finally his judgment to use black man and white girl in any context is not acceptable language from a presidential candidate. If any other candidate had said black boy in their speech they would be politically crucified. It is clear that there is a double standard in America when it comes to race issues even for an ethnic candidate running for president.
5 - Heloise
Listen, whites who can't read, don't access the Web, make less than 20K a year, won't vote for a black person, and the list goes on have all voted for Hillary and what's worse they are voting (some) for her to pit her against McCain.
Yes, Obama has the yuppie, buppie, well educated, well heeled, vegan types like me and those I meet who are supporting him, and I'd rather have their input into this election and help run the country than the Clintonista types as stated above.
Heloise
6 - The Obnoxious American
Heloise,
I think your comments bely some racism, and if you are white, then perhaps some white guilt as well.
I'm well heeled, well educated, and I used to be a vegan (seriously). But no way would I vote for this guy, or Clinton. Not because he is black. It's all about his (and her) policies. I've read your articles about Obama and it never ceases to amaze me how exhuberant you are for Obama, and yet you rarely get into the nitty gritty of his platform. And here you are again, disparaging anyone who might not vote for Obama, and actually making a veiled suggestion that poor white people who make less than 20K are racist. There was a time when I was earning less than 20K, less educated, less heeled, and yet I had plenty of friends of all colors - in fact, I worked for a black woman! How does that fit into your world view?
In terms of Obama the man, I would be proud for this country to have a black president. I really wish Harold Ford had run, he is a Democrat that I could actually consider voting for. Of course, he wasn't liberal enough for the DNC and was booted out in the last election. It's just a shame that the words coming out of Obama's mouth aren't of a more sensible republican persuasion.
One last point, I do think as a society, it would be a greater accomplishment to have a woman president than a black man. I'm not saying that African Americans have not been downtrodden or that there haven't been considerable obstacles for blacks that are only just now receeding (and only just a bit). But Obama is still a man. A rich man. Only real difference is he has a little bit more pigment than McCain.
As bad as it has been for blacks in the US, over the entire course of humanity, no group of humans has had to endure the prejudice that women have coped with. That's just my opinion, but I think it's right. That said, I'm still a McCain man.
7 - Propagandist
Yes, Obama has the yuppie, buppie, well educated, well heeled, vegan types like me and those I meet who are supporting him
Talk about self righteous and patronizing.
Its pathetic.
8 - Baronius
Ob, I've got mixed feelings about Clinton's Tuesday wins. I'd love to see a weakened Obama get the nomination. But there's still a chance for Clinton to get the nod, and that scares me. I'd forgotten how malicious the Clintons are.
9 - The Obnoxious American
Baronius, if you think you are concerned, think about those super delegates who have switch support to Obama from Hillary. After that, if she wins, those people will pay dearly for their transgressions.