New Republic: Obama's Coalition Shifting From Moderates To McGovern-esque

The New Republic:

Hillary Clinton won a decisive ten-round decision over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary, but she didn't score a knockout. The struggle continues. Clinton still has virtually no chance of overtaking Obama's delegate lead or his edge in the popular vote. And the superdelegates will be loath to ignore this advantage. Meanwhile, Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary.

Clinton's best chance of winning the nomination was to win Pennsylvania so decisively that she would have set off a media firestorm about Obama's electability--one that would lead superdelegates to wonder whether she would not be a much, much stronger candidate in November. In the wake of revelations about Obama's relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Clinton was ahead by 15 percent or more in polls. I visited Pennsylvania during this time, and could feel the growing disillusionment with Obama.

Read the whole story: The New Republic

Comments

[ajax2]

As Hillary thundered for nuclear annihilation and fired the flames of bigotry, John B. Judis herd a nuance that shifted Obama. What big ears you have sir.

[beautykilledbeast]

Even though I was only nine years old, George McGovern's loss hurt me very deeply and in this Republican Ascendancy, the anger and pain have become chronic.
Please remember people a statistic I saw in the Spring of 1973. Had they known then what they didn't know before, sixty-five percent of the public would have voted for George McGovern.
That's some serious buyer's remorse.

[vsign]

That was painful to have him lose so badly. We all lost so much.

[heal57]

It is apparent that since Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination, all the republicans, MSM, the Wall Street Jurnal owned now by Rupert Murdoch, our conservativer newspapers such as the Arizona Republic are spinning this nosense against Sen Obama because they don't know what else to do but try to somehow ruin his campaign. However, this is an impossibility. Just do the math!
Even Jenna Bush said she may not vote republican. The status quo is not ready for the sweeping changes an Obama administration will make. Obama will pull from the middle and even some on the right. I ought to know. Obama supporters, hold tight.

Independents for Obama '08

[castlerider]

Hold everything!

I was there, and witnessed very strongly the McGovern campaign. Because of the lack of good communication and the total ease that corporate elites had in manipulating the Media in 1972, McGovern's message was never really brought forth.

People, get a clue!!
McGovern would have been a HELL OF A LOT BETTER PRESIDENT THEN RICHARD NIXON!!
What did Nixon give us that term? Watergate.

[antaeus]

Who is saying that McGovern would not have been a better president? Of course he would have, but that's not the point. The point is that Middle America, rightly or wrongly, perceived McGovern as being too far out of the mainstream. As did the voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania with Obama.

[vsign]

I think as Democrats we have ignored "Middle America" too long and not won the Presidency because of our own failings. My husband is a "Reagan Democrat" and is upset that he voted for Reagan. He is a disabled worker from the lead and gold mines. His career was shortchanged when the mines shut down in the mid 80's because of economic changes that Reagan made. He was determined to vote Democratic this year. He does not want to vote against his economic interest ever again. But he will not vote for Obama. Obama is not in touch with who he is and he cannot feel right about voting for someone that out of touch with America.

Obama is too far out of the mainstream. I don't like the way working class people are talked about by his supporters either. And I don't like the way Obama praises in anyway Reagan and disses on Bill Clinton's presidency. If he doesn't respect the Clinton era - why call yourself a Democrat?

[MoreCowBellNow]

Anything that isn't completely pro-Obama is scare talk?

Women that have spent more than a few years on the professional field that support Clinton in the remaining primary are now NEVER going to switch to Obama. They've been hearing the same bs for years--that they're not polite enough and need to soften up. This whole, "Clinton is a negative campaigner" is not only going to fall on deaf ears to these women, but it's totally sexist. No person ever running for president has been accused of being negative like Clinton and this is soooo benign of campaign compared to past years. Unless you compare it to Kerry who was too nice and failed. JFK primary was the nastiest one in history. So cut the crap with this negative campaining argument aginst Clinton.

[ballewb]

I actually think that the primary has not been all that negative, despite what people would have me believe. I remember other primaries and general elections that were much more mean spirited.

Additionally, I think the notion of switching to an entirely different political party simply because your prefered candidate does not in the nomination is retarded. Sorry, I meant to say immature (at least as immature as calling someone's ideas retarded). The positions of BO and HC are not that far apart. Switching to the Republican side rather than voting for the OTHER Democrat boggles my mind. It's like saying that if you cannot have Oreos rather than Hydrox cookies, you will just munch on some broken glass instead. It does not make sense.

Finally, please stop generalizing your opinions on larger portions of society than you have the authority to speak for. Just because you may never vote for BO does not mean that all women that would have voted for HC will not vote for BO in the general election.

[vsign]

The results from the exit polls in PA show that about twice the number of Hillary voters will either not vote or vote for McCain.

Hillary supporters represent more of the moderates in the party so this makes sense to me that the strongest feelings against Obama are from this group. We will not vote for someone so ill prepared to have this much power and control over our resources - no matter that he is a Democrat. As far as I'm concerned, Obama represents a third party trying to take over the Democratic label.

[vsign]

I agree "MoreCowBellNow".

There are so many of us that will not vote for Obama - I hope the superdelegates listen to us.

Obama shows how weak he is by complaining about Hillary's campaigning. His trying to pretend to "be above it all" does not work with us and it won't work with the general public in the long run. His campaign tactics are far worse than Hillary's because he has to pretend too much to be what he isn't. Hillary makes comparisons. Obama's campaign kicks and screams at Hillary (gives her the finger) and then runs away and hides behind Obama's "coolness". None of it will connect to voters outside of the far left who are elitist enough to think Obama actually represents them.

We are beginnning to see how the Republicans will "define" Obama as an extremist. And he is. Hillary supporters have seen it for a long while. The definition will stick because it is true.

[ajax2]

Anybody against corporate wars is extreme to war profiteers.

[EinChicago]

Did Obama start out as a McGoivern type candidate? No. But he has effectively been backed into a corner by the fringe who have selected him as their Cult leader following Kucinich's withdrawal, and now he is stuck in the McGovern role. That's the problem with the fringe; they're louder and more shrill than any other group, which creates a false impression of size. Obama is on track to make McGovern look like 72 look like a respectable loss. He is systematically alienating the important swing states and putting all his eggs in one basket that hardcore red south-eastern states will have some type of apotheosis on a mass scale and turn blue in the fall. It won't happen. McCain, for all his faults wa sa pretty smart choice by the repugs because he effectively takes most western states out of play when run against Obama. UT, NV, NM, WY, TX, WY and ID are guaranteed wins for Arizona McCain if he runs against Obama, who is as unpopular with the hispanic voters in the southwest as he is with the AA voters in the south east. Obama has done a bang up job of alienating the traditional big swing states such as FL, OH, PA and MI. The so-called 50 state strategy was always nothing more than a small state strategy as it intrinsically involves telling the traditional big swing state voters they don't matter to the dems anymore, e.g., Obama's handling of FL/PA.

[ajax2]

Is Racism Moving Clinton Camp From Bush Lite To Goldwater Crazies.

[fourex]

Has Hillary move past Bush Lite into pure bigotry and racism, the core of the Radical Right?

[EinChicago]

And the core of a Rev. Wright sermon. ;)

[ajax2]

No it wasn't. But it is centered in Bush, Lott, Thurmond, Hannitty, Rush and O'Reilly, racism a core Republican value.

[heal57]

Yes, Hillary should be on the McCain ticket.

[bison1]

McGovern has endorse Clinton.

[ibsteve2u]

Hey, watch it - this is politics...you know that facts just get in the way.

[ajax2]

Hagee has endorsed McCain.

[JerryTheAngel]

Senator McGovern was a war hero. He received medals for flying dangerous missions during WW2. Richard Nixon became one of the most corrupt presidents in our history. Just another example of where the American voters cared more about negative campaigning then the issues and got it wrong AGAIN, just like in 2000 (scratch that, Al Gore won in 2000) and especially in 2004, when Senator Kerry another war hero who was attacked for his service to his country and Bush the war criminal won, instead of an American war hero. It just shows you how the majority of the electorate in this country can be manipulated so easily with propaganda and lies. Will it happen again this fall?

[ballewb]

Go read some history.

[vsign]

McGovern represented the anti-war activists, far left of the Democratic Party. Obama represents the same people within the party.

Most Americans prefer leaders who govern from the center. We really don't want extremists as leaders.

Anti-war activists believe they are more powerful than they are at times like this when there is an unpopular war. They come out in great numbers and challenge the centrists in the party during the nomination process.

It has happened before - it is happening now. And like before - they will lose in a big way in the general. They are over estimating the sentiments of the country. They do not know the American people. They have always tended to be elitist - thinking they know "better" than most people.

Most of us want a change in Iraq - but we are not ready to lay down our weapons.

[JerryTheAngel]

70 percent of the country wants our troops out of that civil war in Iraq. I guess that means 70 percent of the country is Left Wing. LOL

[ibsteve2u]

lolll...not to mention that when someone uses "we" and "us" a lot but has never actually solicited any other opinions [or votes], you know you're about to be coerced into a plan of action you're way not going to like.

By the way - did you know "centrists" and "moderates" is code for "Business as usual"?

[SuppersReady]

Unlike in 1972, the majority of the public was not against the war. Only the young who were regarded as hippies who were crazy and irrational. The young of that time (Including Hillary) are now in thier late 50's and early 60,s. The middle-aged majority who voted for Nixon are either dead or living in a nursing home in Pennsylvania. This was over 30 years ago. The most high-tech thing in an average home was a T.V. and a blender......You cannot even compare the two. This time Obama supporters want to think about the future not dwell in the past.

As for you VSIGN, you don't want to lay down YOUR weapons? How ironic. It is those who are not fighting in this war and probably never will who are so pro-war. Why don't you vote for McCain. He will surley give you or one of your family members a chance to die for thier country. The Draft....it;s coming and you will be crying your eyes out when it does.......

Veteran for Obama

[vsign]

I am not pro-war. In 1972, I voted for McGovern. Most Democrats in 1972 were against the Vietnam War. Isn't that what got McGovern nominated? Did McGovern win the General? Nixon knew he had to bring our troops home from Vietnam to get reelected and did.

The Republicans know they have to stop our troops from getting killed in Iraq in order to continue our presence in the middle east. That will happen no matter who is elected. Americans will not support this war if we are paying too great a price. McCain is promising to end the "cost" of this war. With his experience, he will likely win the General.

[KYSmiling]

Most Americans prefer leaders who govern from the center. We really don't want extremists as leaders.

Can we say Bush?

[vsign]

Bush got elected (kinda) with the help of the religious right who were extremely anti-abortion. I think Bush got re-elected because Americans wanted experience since we were in the middle of a war. Now the Republicans have gauged it correctly again by excluding the religious right to a great extent and are presenting Americans with a General Election candidate without the an extreme wedge issue like anti-abortion. They will run on experience again.

If we offer a candidate with little experience - Obama will fit within the "extreme" stereotype.

[ballewb]

Can we say wedge issue voters being manipulated by the evil genius Karl Rove?

Can we say that using the first person plural annoying?

[heal57]

I'm pretty conservative on quite a few issues [economics, etc] and I have been against the Iraq war since it started. I am no left winger. Go spin somewhere else. Our soldiers are dying for oil revenues. You're terrified of an Obama victory; well get used to it.

Independents for Obama

[harriscrl3]

You know whats interesting for someone who has no chance of winning the white house be it because he cant stand up to the republican smear machine, He is too leftist or radical, He is an unknown the republicans and Hilary are sure as heck working overtime to destroy his chances of coming out of the primary. If he's just another George McGovern why are they working so hard to stop his march to the general election. I have my theory. Here's the thing if there was ever a presidential candiate and president who can motivate the American people to pay attention to their government this guy is it. And when you pay attention to your government it makes it hard for them to pull the wool over your eyes. THere is NOTHING more deadly to Fascism than an active citizenry paying attention to what their govermnent is doing. And folks if you dont think we are teethering on the brink of fascism in this country well I have a bridge I want to sell you. Do you seriously think the republicans dont entertain the idea that John McCain is going to lose? Of course they have but they want him to lose to Hilary. There is no bigger threat they face than a government that works from the bottom up. A transparent government with an executive branch who is NOT beholden to lobbyist who is beholden only to the AMERICAN PEOPLE as the Constitution was designed to do.

Carol

[KQuarksSuperCollider]

The fact is that the Republicans are scared to death of Obama, because he is one of the few politicians that speak to peoples better nature and intelligence. Democrats have not had a good politician as a candidate since Bill Clinton. I use politician in the best sense of the word as a person who can communicate a vision and inspire the American people. Hillary is a terrible politician who has no vision and does not inspire.

[ibsteve2u]

Interesting story for the ones of you who hope that this next Presidential election won't result in "business as usual".

Clinton won Massachusetts, where Democratic Governor Deval Patrick endorses Obama.

Massachusetts has a Democratic State Representative, Daniel Bosley, who [according to VoteSmart.org] endorses Clinton.

Now, Governor Patrick has been trying like blazes to rein in corporate welfare and tax loopholes in his state. Looked like he had it whipped, too...until a last minute amendment got snuck into the bill http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/04/24/tax_measure_could_cost_state_millions//).

That amendment "would permit large corporations [like Wal-Mart] to avoid up to $200 million in state taxes a year if they maintain large portions of their business operations overseas".

Who sponsored that amendment? Why, none other than Clinton's endorser, Representative Daniel E. Bosley.

You see, I'm afraid that those states that have well-organized "political machines" large enough to give those states to Hillary are, like Hillary, also "Republican Lite" - regardless of their nominal status as local Democratic Party organizations.

[ibsteve2u]

What I should add is that our American political process is due for a major overhaul - our two primary political parties are both too corrupt.

The Republicans need to split off their true conservatives that still have the original Republican values. The Democrats need to split off their progressives that still have the original Democratic values.

The remainder of the two parties should merge into a single new party, which I suggest should be named "The OBO", or "Owned by Others".

[KQuarksSuperCollider]

Thanks for the link very insightful article. One of the biggest challenges Obama will face after being elected is the DLC which is tied to corporate America. But he can shame them into submission where Hillary and McCain would be more of the same for the American people. Pro big business to a fault. The fact is Hillary's health care plan mandate would be the biggest boon to corporations since NAFTA. Can you imagine forcing everyone to pay 10% of their salaries to insurance corporations for heath care?

[ajax2]

He should shrink the DLC to a size small enough to drown in a bathtub.

[tchristin]

The continuing ugliness coming from the Clinton campaign clearly designed to ignite old prejudices is unbelieveable in it's gall and arrogance in their belief that Americans can't or won't think for themselves. The longer it goes on the less I like Hillary and the more I wonder why she is even in the running. When there were men like Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards and Bill Richardson in the primary, we should have had the most impressive debate in history and the easiest road to victory for Democrats. She should pick Joe Lieberman as her runningmate they both put their self interest above whats best for the country and their own party. Every week, I am reminded of the constant barrage of controversy and divisiveness the Clintons inspired when Bill was President and I find it harder and harder to imagine another Clinton white house.

[Lauren1959]

This guy comes from no where. He has no money and no organization. He out-hires, out-raises and out-organizes the most well known political name in the United States (other than Bush). Philosophically he lines up almost directly with Clinton except on the war (and for the integrity part; he doesn't lie, change the rules, etc.). So what do the Clinton's do? Claim he is too liberal. Let's see- maybe Clinton should make clear her conservative bent. We know she supported the war.... So is he more pro-choice than she (recall she lost a key supporter putting out propaganda that he was weak on choice early in the campaign). Is she more pro-gun (indications recently, but not historically are yes). The problem we have is we have one competent, capable candidate who is consistent in his positions, yet willing to listen to others with and open mind. On the other hand we have a candidate saying anything, spinning out of control, broke, changing her people, and putting out Republican ads....Tough choice?

[texanna]

I disagree with your disingenuous characterization of Sen. Obama. He has been carefully placed and mentored on the national stage by powerful people at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Do you think an Illinois State Senator just called up the scheduler at the last national convention to say he'd like some prime time to say a few words? Do you think that he just whipped together a national campaign staff and strategy based on his successful single campaign for a state senate seat? Do you think that he just looked in the yellow pages for the big money angels to get things up and going initially? Please! You might wish to suspend reason, but there are a great number of us that know it ain't so. I am not saying that these things disqualify or in any way take away from Sen. Obama's intellect, ideas or potential capacity to be a good or great President so please, don't presume that I completely dislike Sen. Obama.