By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 05/22 at 08:55 AM
(1)
Comments
Hillary Clinton made no bones about her history-making campaign as the first serious female presidential contender. She raised more money, won more states, won more delegates and got farther along in the process than any other woman in the history of the United States of America.
Now that her presidential campaign seems to (finally) be near the end of its 37th life, Clinton is speaking out—and she’s not happy.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Clinton said this about the “sexist” treatment she has endured during the campaign:
“It’s been deeply offensive to millions of women,“ Clinton said. “I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press, and I regret that, because I think it’s been really not worthy of the seriousness of the campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies we have here.“
Later, when asked if she thinks this campaign has been racist, she says she does not. And she circles back to the sexism. “The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head,“ she said. “It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists.“
Clinton’s feminist friends are standing by their sister.
Geraldine Ferraro, the first female vice presidential candidate, called Barack Obama “terribly sexist” and said she may not support him in the general election.
An prominent—but anonymous—Clinton supporter decried “the pervasive and insidious sexism that runs rampant through our country.“ The unknown author encourged women not to vote for Obama, but to write in Hillary Clinton’s name and cast a protest vote in November. This is necessary, the author said, because “the DNC thinks we will vote for Obama because like abused women we have no where else to go.“
The Washington Post’s Marie Cocco said Clinton faced “unrelenting, sex-based hate” during the campaign and concludes, “But for all Clinton’s political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.“
Conservative pundit Rich Galen opines on the state of the ladies’ discontent and what it means for the Democrats in the general election in his most recent column, not accidentally titled “Girls, Girls, Girls.“
(Get it?)
Galen wonders whether there may be “a growing sentiment that being Black in America is better (at least if you are running for President) than being a Woman in America.“
What do you think? Does Obama’s near-imminent nomination mean that America is closer to stamping out racism than sexism? Is it better to be black in America than female in America?
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 05/20 at 10:40 PM
(0)
Comments
Although today was the day that Kentucky and Oregon took their places among the parade of states that have voted for president in this long, long, LONG campaign for the White House, the only surprises came in a show that involved voting of a different sort.
Hillary Clinton pounded Barack Obama, as expected, in the Bluegrass State, running up a 35-point victory in her latest drumming of him in (for lack of a better term) late, predominately white states. She delivered a lengthy address in which she made clear her intention to—get ready—continue on in the campaign! I will say, though, that this speech was one of her better ones; it wasn’t the content that struck me as much as the pace of it. Usually, Hillary drones on a lot. Tonight, she seemed to have an energy about her. Maybe she had one too many Red Bulls: That would explain her fuzzy, fuzzy math. Clinton now says she has won more popular votes than Obama. Only a few problems with that argument:
No. 1, it’s completely irrelevant. The Democratic (big D) Party selects its nominee through delegates. It is not a democratic process (little d).
No. 2, for Clinton’s claim to be true, she would have to include all the primary states, plus Florida and Michigan, but not caucus states. So much for counting every vote.
No. 3, Clinton couldn’t know the popular vote numbers, anyway, since caucus states don’t release exact vote totals.
No. 4, Florida and Michigan cannot and should not count—at least until the DNC Rules Committee deals with this issue on May 31.
But however strange the logic was behind it, the Clinton cheer was short-lived. Shortly after she spoke, Obama took the stage in Des Moines, Iowa, to soak in the excitement that comes from having won the majority of your party’s pledged presidential delegates. However weak his showing in Kentucky—and it was weak—it put him over that mark. Obama delivered a polished-up version of his general election speech, which he debuted a couple of days ago. It was notable for the conciliatory, even admirable tone toward Clinton (Obama noted that because of what Clinton has done in this election, because of the barriers she has broken and the support she has drawn, the world will be a different place for his two daughters), and then for the way Obama just as quickly changed gears and referred to John McCain as “my opponent.“ Translation: Clinton is no longer his opponent.
The speech sought to shore up Obama’s weaknesses among rural white voters in the wake of the “only-bitter-people-carry-guns-and-go-to-church” flap that dogged Obama last month. But if it was all but repentant in tone where that was concerned, it was downright in-your-face when it came to McCain and his foreign policy.
You know by now that McCain and Obama have been exchanging body blows since the president rang the bell with his comments about appeasement before the Israeli Knesset last week. Pundits can argue all day whether Obama’s strategy—which is to go after McCain with both barrels, so to speak—is wise or reckless. Few people can match up with the personal experiences of a solider who was held as a prisoner of war for more than five years. But Obama is not trying to match it: He’s simply saying he has different ideas, and he’s not backing away from it or trying to minimize it as a campaign issue. What’s good about that is that it shows Obama’s confidence in his position and that he is willing to stand on his belief that his is the right position. What’s potentially bad about it is that if he’s not careful, Obama risks wading into an area where McCain has experience that is just a few years shorter than the entire time Barack Obama has been alive. Obama cannot afford to be seen as a condescending university-type lecturing a wayward military recruit. If he can successfully walk that line, it will be considered a good strategy, one that allowed Obama to stand toe-to-toe with a man who was a POW for five and a half years. It he fails, it will go down as one of the biggest blunders of all time, because Obama will have chosen to engage McCain on what McCain believes are his strongest issues: National security and foreign policy.
Obama needs to remember that there’s a reason home games are desireable. He needs to play on his own field, where he has the upper hand on domestic issues like the economy, rather than volunteering to go out on the road all the time to McCain’s national security and foreign policy yard. Even the best teams get weary of the road.
All in all, I thought it was a solid speech, a good jumping-off point for Obama as he trains his sights on McCain and begins to tweak his general-election message as the race for the Democratic nomination (we hope) dies down.
As for the other voting venue, I cast my vote for David Archuleta after the season finale of “American Idol.“ It was the first time where I genuinely felt that either contestant would make a great champion, but Archuleta brought his A game to the finale, while Cook seemed to struggle with uncharacteristic nervousness.
But fans love David Cook as much as they love Archuleta—and possibly even more. We’ll find out tomorrow at 7 p.m. Central time.
If only the fight for the Democratic nomination could be settled as soon!
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 05/20 at 12:28 AM
(1)
Comments
Last week, I brought you Part 1 of my conversation with Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham. (If you missed it, click here to catch up.)
Here’s Part 2, a few days late but no worse for the wear.
Hillary Clinton continues to make her argument to the Democratic Party’s superdelegates on the basis of an electability argument. She points to states she’s won – like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and Massachusetts – and says that she has won in the spring where Democrats must win in the fall. And anyway, her surrogates say, if Democrats awarded delegates on a winner-take-all basis, as Republicans do, rather than a proportional basis, Clinton would already be the nominee-in-waiting.
So what of the proportional vs. winner-take-all debate? Turnham said he’s asked staff to give him analysis of this issue vis-à-vis Clinton’s campaign against Barack Obama. But convincing him to scrap the current system will be tough.
“I’m still a fan of proportionality, and I’m still a fan of the Electoral College,” Turnham said. “I think the tendency is to be able to say that someone who wins 51 percent of a state gets all of (its delegates). But that primary process is not representative of a party of great diversity,” he said. “When you look at proportional representation in its totality, everyone’s voice gets heard somehow.” In Alabama, for example, Clinton won some congressional districts 2-to-1, but Obama racked up big numbers in the Black Belt, in Birmingham and in the Mobile area. “At the end of the day, everyone felt like they got something and their vote counted,” Turnham said.
Under a winner-take-all system, if candidates split a hypothetical vote of 47-39 percent, the candidate with 39 percent walks away with nothing. But Turnham has a warning for those who decry the proportional system that has given us this extended presidential nominating contest: Beware the law of unintended consequences.
“The flip side is that if Republicans succeed in getting proportional representation in California, the Democratic path to White House becomes much greater,” Turnham said. “Instead of 53 (delegates), you get 30. That’s a big difference.”
Turnham pointed out that some “solid red” states, including Arkansas, West Virginia and Virginia, may be in play for Democrats this year. In addition, he said, some “light red” states, like Colorado, Texas, Kansas and Mississippi, may turn blue in November. “Most of the national trends are to Democrats,” Turnham said.
“The real key is, I think Democrats probably pick up a minimum of 15 House seats and three to five Senate seats,” he said. But it’s not all wine and roses, and Turnham is already looking ahead to 2010 and beyond.
“The danger for Democrats is if they win it all and they have to govern, and they inherit a war they didn’t start, record energy prices, recessionary features of the economy, falling real incomes, an infrastructure that needs about a trillion and a half spent on it, the rising clout and power of Russia and China and the potential for a nuclear Iran … if you have it all, you’ll be (held) totally responsible, whereas 2008 is still a little bit a referendum on the Bush presidency,” Turnham said.
One of the good things about the drawn-out primary season is that controversies that are likely to dog Barack Obama in the general election campaign – his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, certain statements made by his wife and the infamous lapel pin flap – “have been exposed early,” Turnham said.
“He’s kind of weathered all that … Some is residual and will go over into November, but a lot of voters will have fatigue on ‘Obama-bashing’ on some level,” he said. That’s especially true when other issues, like gas prices, continue to take center stage.
Speaking of those gas prices, Turnham predicted more trouble at the pump, calling it “not out of the question” that prices could climb to $4 or $5 a gallon. And if that happens, all bets are off. Turnham said that is one alarum bell he’s heard the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) ringing for its members and candidates – and rightfully so.
“That’s why I feel good about (congressional races in districts) 2, 5 and 3,” Turnham said. “Those open seats like (retiring Congressman Terry) Everett’s that lean Republican, they aren’t going to get the multimillion-dollar commitment that (Congressman Mike) Rogers got against me,” Turnham said, referring to his own race for Alabama’s Third Congressional District in 2002. As such, he said, Republican challengers seeking to win open seats being vacated by Democrats “are left to their own devices, without the cash advantage of incumbency,” Turnham said.
Turnham said one of the brightest spots for Democrats may end up being CD 3, where 29-year-old Josh Segall will challenge Rogers, the two-term incumbent. Segall “has raised more money than any congressional candidate at this point, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s passed $350,000 to $400,000” before loans by the end of the next quarter, Turnham said. Because of the district’s demographic makeup – Turnham estimated that 26 percent of the population is African-American – Segall could benefit from an Obama-led ticket that boosts African-American turnout from just under 20 percent to just over 25 percent, he said. Under that scenario, if Segall went from 40 percent to 44 or 45 percent without spending any money, Turnham said, “paid communication can get him that 6 percent. Plus, you throw the dynamics of fuel prices, and … you just don’t know what’s going on out there.”
Turnham is also encouraged by what’s going on in CD 2, where several big names are slugging it out in a Republican primary. It’s “not a great, stellar lineup on the Republican side. There’s no heir apparent,” Turnham said, adding that even the eventual winner of that contest will end up “broke, angry and tired when they get through.” The Democratic primary features several candidates who are “outstanding individuals,” Turnham said, but “I do think that it will be tough for (Montgomery Mayor Bobby) Bright not to prevail.” Turnham called Bright “a popular mayor” and noted that he grew up in the Wiregrass but governs in Montgomery, so he has a geographic advantage in the general election.
Finally, in CD 5, Democratic candidate State Sen. Parker Griffith “is a popular state senator with his own resources who’s raising money and is endorsed by the sitting congressman (Cramer),” Turnham said.
And so, all things considered, with a couple of breaks here and there and a high turnout in November, Alabama’s congressional seats could go from its current split of 5-2 in favor of Republicans to 4-3 in favor of Democrats. “I think that’s achievable as we sit here today,” Turnham said.
And that’s not all.
If the presidential nomination can be settled without lingering hard feelings and Democrats can unite around their nominee, the sky is the limit for Democrats downticket.
“We can win anything downballot if (support for the Democratic presidential candidate) gets into the mid-40s, but not if it’s in the high 30s,” Turnham said. “It’s tough for downballots to outperform presidential candidates by 12 points.”
Turnham recalled how, when he was party chairman in 1996, the Clinton-Gore ticket was within the margin of error against the Dole-Kemp combo in the waning days of the general election. Word got back to President Clinton, who decided to come to Alabama two weeks before the election; Dole quickly followed suit. Clinton was in Birmingham at the BJCC, and Dole was in Montgomery for an event on the steps of the Capitol on the same day, Turnham said.
“It made (Republican nominee Bob) Dole change his plan,” Turnham said. “We made the Republicans defend Alabama, two weeks out, with their nominee … I think we can do that this year, no matter who the nominee is,” he said.
For the sake of conversation, Turnham said, consider the likely McCain-Obama matchup. If it starts at 50-38 for McCain but Obama and Democrats can pick up four points, suddenly the race is 46-42. “With (McCain’s campaign) not knowing what turnout is going to be, they may have to spend money here,” Turnham said. “That’s the beauty of a 50-state strategy, when you make people play the entire field of battle. It makes them spend resources … sometimes you can win by not winning.”
And if that happens, Turnham said, cue the domino effect.
“If our presidential ticket’s running at 46 percent, (PSC candidate Lucy) Baxley and (Alabama Supreme Court candidate Deborah Bell) Paseur and Bright and Segall and Griffith can win,” Turnham said – and that’s not counting the district court judges.
Such is the potential benefit of a long presidential primary, Turnham said.
“This thing has been hand-to-hand combat for months and months,” he said. “Hillary and Obama had people in Wyoming. They had 15 and 30 people on the ground in Wyoming working caucusgoers, ID’ing them. That’s a place where Democrats would wave at them when they flew over,” he said. “In Alabama, they had offices in three places, paid communications and donor and volunteer lists. That’s going to have residual effects around the country, and if it comes down to turnout in individual states, I like where Democrats are on that.”
Turnham said he is seeing the change firsthand. He recently spoke to a group of honors students in a class at Auburn University, he said. Groups like those, he said, are typically heavily Republican.
“I’ve gone to those before and seem three Democrats in the room,” he said. But the professor told him that he had polled the students, and they came down about 40 percent for Obama, 30 percent for McCain and 20 percent for Clinton, he said. “I was like, ‘What?’” Turnham said. But it bears out what exit polls have been saying: That Democrats are winning big among young voters, he said.
So there’s reason for optimism, Turnham said, adding, “We’ll see. It’s tough sledding in Alabama. I’ve sat through some disastrous nights, too.”
Success in November means addressing Obama’s “deficit on a number of fronts,” Turnham said. That includes fending off the “elitist” label with which Republicans have been trying to tag Obama, but it also means “adequately addressing the things that hurt Democrats,” he said. That includes making sure Democrats are strong on terrorism, homeland security and border protection, Turnham said.
“I think (Speaker Nancy) Pelosi did a little of that when she came, talking about our long-term commitment to veterans and people with traumatic brain injuries, our strong platform on building up our regular forces and taking the pressure off of our reservists and putting them back into their intended roles,” Turnham said. And it means having strong policies on energy and gas prices, health care and education, he said.
All in all, Turnham said, “I don’t think Democrats need to cower and back down.”
Twitter updates from Jennifer at 
