Political "Earthquake" in Hastert's Illinois CD Boosts Case for Obama
Last Saturday a political "earthquake" struck in the ex-urban Republican leaning 14th Congressional District of Illinois. Democrat Bill Foster won the special election to replace retired former House Speaker Dennis Hastert who had represented the district for two decades. The district voted heavily for George Bush both in 2000 and 2004. Hastert was never reelected by less than 64%. Senator John McCain campaigned aggressively for the Republican candidate Jim Oberweis.
Yet Democrat Foster won a convincing 53% to 47% victory.
How is that relevant to Barack Obama? Because Foster choose to link his candidacy directly to Obama. His literature was full of Obama. And the closing TV ad of the campaign was Barack Obama asking the people of the Republican 14th District to support Democrat Foster and his agenda for change in Washington. That message attracted independents and many Republicans. And the spirit of Obama's own campaign helped energize Democrats to volunteer and turnout to vote for Foster.
My wife, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, and I spent Saturday going door-to-door asking people to get out and vote for Foster. At door after door people talked about the need for change -- their readiness to support Foster -- and their support for Obama.
Obama's effect on the Foster race is emblematic of why Democratic superdelegates are beginning to break for Obama.
Not only is Obama the most electable Democratic candidate for president this fall, he's also the candidate that will help elect more Democrats to the House and Senate. And the effect the presidential candidate has on House and Senate races -- as well as races for State Legislature -- will be a big factor in determining who Super Delegates support.
If you don't believe me, pull aside virtually any member of Congress who represents a tough swing district, and ask privately who he or she wants to head the ticket. The verdict is virtually unanimous: they all believe that Obama's nomination will be far more helpful to their own candidacies than Hillary Clinton's. The same goes for candidates trying to take Republican seats.
You hear four reasons for this assessment:
1). They believe that Obama will turn out large numbers of new Democratic voters that simply won't show up if Hillary is the candidate. This is doubly true when districts have sizeable minority populations. But it is true of young people across the board.
2). They believe that Obama will appeal to independents and some Republicans -- and create an environment more favorable to their own candidacies among those voters.
3). They think Obama will be much more helpful at raising money for their own races than Clinton.
4). Most importantly, many think Clinton's presence on the ticket will galvanize the right-wing base. They simply don't want to run on a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton, and many say they would not campaign with her in their districts.
When it comes to passing a progressive agenda in 2009, it is almost as important for Democrats to increase their majorities in the House and Senate as it is to elect a Democratic president.
And when you look at where seats are in play in the fall, you'll understand why Democratic candidates feel the way they do.
Hillary Clinton has very high negatives, particularly in places like the central and southern Indiana where Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill have to compete for reelection, or Western North Carolina, Heath Schuler's district. The same goes for places like Waco, Texas, home of Democrat Chet Edwards, or Wyoming where Gary Trauner has a good chance of taking the seat being vacated by Republican Barbara Cubin.
Other in-play House seats are in places like southern Minnesota, northern Kentucky, and Greenbay, Wisconsin where Hillary Clinton is not very popular and Obama helps -- either with minorities, young people or independents.
Of course Bill Foster will have to compete for a full term this fall. In addition at least two Republican Illinois Congressional districts will be in play, the Chicago suburban 10th represented by Republican Mark Kirk; and the suburban 11th being vacated by Republican Jerry Weller. Peoria Congressman Ray LaHood is also stepping down from a seat that could easily go Democratic. An Obama Presidential candidacy would massively increase the odds for Democrats in his home state of Illinois.
Obama's candidacy would also be a big shot in the arm to in-play Senate candidates. He would help Congressman Tom Allen attract independents from Republican Susan Collins in Maine and boost turn out among young Democratic voters. The same goes for Democrat Jeff Merkley in his race with Gordon Smith in Oregon, Jeane Shaheen's race to defeat John Sununu in New Hampshire, and the battle to oust Norm Coleman in Minnesota.
Obama would energize young people in Colorado where Marc Udall is running for an open Senate seat; and in New Mexico where his cousin Tom Udall is seeking to succeed retiring Republican Peter Domenici.
In Kentucky, Louisiana and Virginia Obama's nomination would turbo charge African American turnout. Just as importantly Clinton's negatives would not weight down the Democratic candidate.
Following the March 4th primaries, the Clinton campaign tried to argue that even though she is behind in elected, pledged delegates, that superdelegates should support her because she is more electable in November. Subsequent polls showing just the contrary have caused that line of argument to evaporate.
If they now try to pedal the notion that her nomination would help down ballot more than the selection of Obama, that argument will fall flat as well. After all, many of the superdelegates are the very candidates who know first hand the danger of hitching their wagons to the Clinton star.
By the way, in his victory speech, Bill Foster announced that he will vote for Obama in his new capacity as Congressional Super Delegate at the Democratic Convention.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I noticed that at least one of the respondents said he would sit home rather than vote for Hillary. Me, too. I won't vote to continue the current aggression or the next one. As has been amply demonstrated, Hillary is in the "pro-war" camp with John McSame. I have two kids at university. Both are ardent supporters of Obama, as are their friends. They won't vote for Hillary, either. If Hillary is the dem candidate I suspect that Nader will get a significant protest vote, and be blamed again for tossing the election to the repugnants.
And I won't vote for Obama, so it looks like one of us will be responsible for a McCain win.
"so it looks like one of us will be responsible for a McCain win"
HRC will be more responsible than you.
Obama is a "centrist", not that different from Hillary except for the Iraq aggression, whatever the repugnant pundits say. He wasn't my first choice, and I'm not that happy with his positions, but he does seem to have the youth vote and the potential to get some progressives in congress. I'll vote for him if I get the chance. But let the repugnants get the credit for the consequences of their wars if it is a choice between commander in chief Hillary and McSame.
How is good Gods name can anybody call somebody who is one the most liberal if not outright socialist people in the Senate a "centerist?" Sounds like you need a good dictionary buddy
And I will NEVER vote for this woman. I'll vote for Nader, and we will blame it on Nader, not on the woman endorsing, and praising McCain.
I just want her to release her taxes, list of donors to her husband's library, and list of pardons he granted. Just so blue-collar workers can be reassured Hilly really cares for them, and not for special interest.
Kindly remember that Foster is a self-financed millionaire Democrat -- just what the Party loves and salivates over. Any true Progressive they get rid of as soon as possible.
Obama allowed Foster to use his name. So what. As much as Obama can *walk on water* in Illinois, he has never done anything to help IL-19 rid itself of John Shimkus. You do remember him do you not?? -- Hastert protege', dubious defender of young ones on The Hill, weak-kneed LTC weekend warrior that makes milquetoast an art form and sends people to their deaths from the safety of those who protect him. And what about TJ in IL-15? The man takes a very generous paycheck from the taxpayers to barely record a vote when he has no choice. That is how he chooses to represent the people.
Obama is a typical Chicago Machine politician: (1) Talking about change is an oxymoron, and (2) Illinois ends at I-80.
Why on earth would any Republicans support Obama, as this article states?
He's the most liberal Senator.
Real Republicans will shrink from him as if he carries a deadly infection.
Which of course he does.
Ummmm, 100 years of war in Iraq? And that's just one.
Don't underestimate the Barrack-e-feller Republicans.
I'm not sure what a "real" Republican is and neither is your party.
I've had a hard time figuring out exactly which pillar of the Republican Party is planning on voting for this guy as well...
There are the financial conservative repubs - taxcuts, austerity budgets - can't see them supporting him...
There are the national security repubs - (this one really makes me giggle) somehow I doubt the man who's going to have tea with Hammas to iron out our difference s are really going to appeal to them
Finally, the social conservatives - while he maintains a spotless record on abortion, gay rights and right to bear arms, I think he's fudged it enough to be able to get some crossover. They're also the most likely to defect. So, that could conceivably work, but I just can't help thinking they're not going to let those Supreme Court justices go...
He is not the most liberal, but I wish he was. Independents and some Republicans will vote for him because his speeches are grand and lofty, speaking of principles instead of policies, which not only bore people but also turn off those opposed to the policies. It's one reason why many non-Republicans voted for Reagan. You know, the Shining City on a Hill stuff. If he'd been a lot more specific about his policies, a lot of people who ended up voting for him probably wouldn't have. (Note to Clintonites: this does NOT mean he HAS no substantive plans, just that his speeches are more than about laundry lists. For those, go to his web site, where you'll find every bit as much substance as on the HRC site.) Obama is a once-in-a-
I see you honor your usser name. Tell the Monster to release her tax records. She may get a deadly infection if she does.
Brother Spike...yo
How can anyone say that the Clinton years were good. Its NAFIA, THE WAR, AND the way that Hilray voted and seem to love John Mccain so much, it will be 100 years of WAR. PLUS, how that woman can LIE, oh my god
So now Bill Clinton started "THE WAR?" What are you talking about?
Try not to mention the war. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.
I'm neither a young or new Democratic voter, but an old, long time Democratic voter who will stay home if Hillary is the nominee. Sorry...bu
Thank you MBFanning! I was beginning to think I was the only Democrat who has had enough of Hillary. I will not vote for her!! We've had enough of the Carl Rove "divide and conqure" politics from the Republicans. We certainly don't need them from a Democratic. Hillary seems to subscribe to the adage-Win if you can-lie and cheat if you must!" The old "swift boating" is her new "kitchen sink". We've had eight years of division. NO MORE!
Please define Obama's promise of "change." I hear Clinton practicing the "same old shit"...an
I think you are confused. If he brings the same old stuff as Clinton and McCain, then why are they (and the establishment they both represent) so afraid of him. Reason? Because he bring a whole new group of people into the mix and that by it's very nature means change.
I live in the 14th.
Bill Foster won on fundamentals, and I don't think Obama's late support for him did much.
The first is that the middle and working class are hurting, and we are heading over a cliff. The fact that gas prices went up 20¢ a gallon in the week of the election was as powerful as any ad. Jim Oberweis was talking about taxes, immigrants and abortions, and none of that means a thing when you're losing your job, your house, and can't afford to get sick.
The second thing is that Jim Oberweis is the rich child of privilege who's using his grandfather's hard work and success to buy himself a public office. He's despised by most of the conservatives I know. Chris Lauzen might have even beaten Foster, and he's a faceless party hack. The Republicans shouldn't have run Oberweis--but they couldn't say no to all that money--which is the Republican Party all over.
The third thing is thatBill Foster is precisely the outsider that people out here like. He's the antithesis of Jim Oberweis, and people responded positively to him.
Obama's support? Frankly, I think most people took that as a given. Was there anybody who said "Wow! OBAMA likes him! Boy, that puts a different spin on things!"? Not to my knowledge.
(And in case you're wondering, I'm an Edwards guy. He shouldn't have dropped out.)
Yeah, and when all of Obama's skeletons come out, you're all in for a big FALL!
that's all you got?
keep dreaming.
If Hillary hasn't found them by now, they ain't there. Give it up.
I am a Republican and I would guess that most, certainly not all, of Obama's skeletons are already out and were exposed by himself. That said, most people have not read his books and most don't know about him beyond his speeches on tv. I think that banking on him being trashed for something no one knows yet would be a bad idea. That said, I think he is going to be soundly beaten in a general election unless he picks someone with cross-over appeal and real experience to be his running mate OR if McCain does not pick the right running mate himself. I have not seen anything in what is happening with Obama to make me think they own November. I was worried about Hillary (she is probably finished) simply because so many people like her husband and their machine is so strong. Too bad (for them) that they hadn't set it up for an insider attack. They thought they owned it and that was just stupid and just as stupid as Obama's people (not Obama) thinking he owns the general election.
The last thing a Clinton supporter should be talking about is skeletons- between them the Clintons have more skeletons than Arlington National Cemetery.
Speaking of skeletons, where are her taxes?
Sorry, but there's a lot of illogic in this article. I'm sure Obama's presence helped. I'm also sure he's enormously popular in Illinois. Endorsing and supporting a candidate is not the same as having coattails. Obama's supporters repeate this coattail argument with no supporting evidence. It's only logical that the candidate who turns out the base will help down ticket more than the candidate who attracts Republicans and Independents. I have yet to see an indication that thse are "Democratic" voters, rather than Obama voters. What motivation does a Republican who is drawn to Obama have for voting for Democratic congressional candidates? There's no logic there.
As this article in the Dallas Morning News points out, in the areas in Texas where Hillary ran well, there was much more support for other Democratic candidates. Where Obama did well , many voters simply skipped the other contests.
http://www
This is hardly definitive, of course, but it it based on actual voting, rather than assertions with absoulutely no data to back them up.
Will you be so kind to explain to me when Hilly supports and endorses McCain, what is the effect on the race for the presidency. What is the logic?
Thank you. Feel free to send a link showing how this helps the Democrats.
Indeed, this is gotta be the most obvious point. Clearly Obama will have coattails if he energies the electorate (esp. young voters). Clinton trying to outmaneuver him isn't set up to do the same. It's so calculated that even if she wins she may not carry much over AND of course it's highly possible she'll lose given that there is no clear differentiation with McCain on Iraq and she's ALREADY conceded "experience" to him as well as "national security" as an issue. She's setting up the Dems to lose AGAIN.
thank you for posting . .. . very insightful . . . . we need more men like forster in Congress . . . . we are all lost if billary somehow manages to steal the Dem nomination
Wishful thinking,the problem with Obama is that he puts much of the Northeast into play for McCain.He is currently losing to McCain in NJ,Penn,Ohio and Maine.He also behind McCain in Fl.,white flight from BO is rapidly increasing,add to that you can kiss the Southwest goodbye where dems had hoped to gain.In all the aforementioned states Clinton is ahead and tied in NM and ahead in NV which Obama is loosing.Th
SurveyUSA doesn't agree with you.
http://www
Foster's win in the 11th is an encouraging sign for Democrats. 2008 should be a very good year for Democratic candidates period. Only an inept effort perfectly designed to produce failure on their part can stop them. Given their recent track record, I fear its even money they blow it! This applies to the presidency especially as I see two rather futile efforts to comply with every stereotype that prevents them from expanding the base. I know, I know, most disagree, but I do not see a winning coalition for the general election just yet and the divisions within the Obama-Hillary ranks threaten to persist until a difficult but doable task (winning) becomes an impossible one.
Having watched the special election closely between Foster and his opponent Jim Oberweis, one thing that stood out for me was failed negative advertising by Oberweis. The voters just simply rejected his false accusations and his nasty tone. Fosters' approach was more positive and Obama's support just added to that theme. The Democrats could learn much from this experience.
Wouldn't Obama, who is from Illinois, pretty much be expected to help out a fellow democrat from Illinois?
don't forget Obama helped Ned Lamont against lieberman in CT in 2006 -- Obama will help other Dems . .. he has already shown that . ..
that's not the point...re
Did you read this bit, or did you just skim? It was a big upset.
"Democrat Bill Foster won the special election to replace retired former House Speaker Dennis Hastert who had represented the district for two decades. The district voted heavily for George Bush both in 2000 and 2004. Hastert was never reelected by less than 64%."
You'd think, but it's simply not the case. Some politicians put their coattails out for others to ride - which Obama is doing. Other's do not - such as the Clintons (ask yourself where were they in '00 and '04?). This is another HUGE difference between the two and another huge reason Obama has a much better chance of getting his agenda accomplished.
1) He has a movement behind him, which is extremely powerful in cutting the red tape. History has shown time and time again that Government is far more efficient when the people are engaged.
2) He knows that he is only one man, and is actively recruiting and helping those that will support his agenda get elected AND they are winning.
The Clintons simply have absolutely no record of this. If you would like a good study to show you what happens between the these two scenarios, look at the presidencies of FDR and TR. They would be examples of how much can get done when the people are engaged. Clinton is comparable to Nixon - he campaigned so heavily for himself he won in a landslide, but in the end crippled his own party and became ineffective because he didn't have a Congress to support him.
Wouldn't Hilly, who is an American Democrat, pretty much not be expected to endorse and praise a Senator from Arizona. The opposition to boot.
Did you notice the statement of Clinton surrogate and card-carrying member of the DLC, Rahm Emanuel, who attributed Foster's success to everything BUT Obama's endorsement and the work of Obama's Illinois grass-roots organization? And Bill Clinton's pre-primary excuse for losing Mississippi tomorrow, namely that the Clintons are behind on putting together a local organization?
The battle for the soul of the Democratic party continues, and the Clintons are no more enlightened now than they were in the 1990s about how to rebuild the party's base.
Which just baffles me why anyone would vote for a candidate that openly admits they are unorganized.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
