As long as we’re at it, TPM Reader DZ …
A couple of points:
1. As an Orthodox Jew, I have heard pulpit rabbis say some offensive things — and I’m not talking about things that are part of normative Jewish law like rules regarding gentiles — but all sorts of thoedicy-type claims about why God allowed particular tragedies to occur, usually involving very Jew-centric views of the world and often ascribing the worst of intentions to gentiles or non-Orthodox Jews. Nonetheless, I never felt the inclination to walk out mid-speech or cut my ties to my synagogue or the rabbi himself. Maybe I am applying a double standard here, but to me my rabbi’s political views are just one narrow aspect of a broad relationship I have with both him and the institution he leads. Based on Obama’s statements, I assume that this is Obama’s view of his relationship with Wright.
2. The question is whether Obama should be doing more. One option is for him to give a Speech sort of like the one Romney gave regarding Mormonism. The reason why this might be successful is that it is precisely Obama’s oratory that has given me and many others the comfort that he doesn’t agree with Wright’s views. He did this most clearly in his convention speech where he convincingly painted a picture of national unity and togetherness transcending race and religion that is so contrary to Wright’s views. I think he can give a speech touching on the same themes while at the same time explicitly rejecting Wright’s views and explaining his relationship. Given Obama’s strength as an orator, I think it can only help.
According to a well-placed Election Central source, Obama has personally told donors that losing Pennsylvania by less than 10 points will be a “victory.”
From TPM Reader EM …
What drives me crazy is how this could have been avoided so easily if Wright was the slightest bit media-savvy. Had he merely controlled his tongue and limited himself to advocating an attack on Iran to encourage massive worldwide Muslim attacks leading to a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of end-times and bringing about Armageddon and the summary slaughter of every Jew, Muslim, Catholic, and non-believer on the planet while rapturing him and his flock up to heaven, then followed it up by denouncing Catholics as cult members and blaming Hurricane Katrina on gay people, this story wouldn’t be metastasizing like this. One five minute milquetoast repudiation by Obama and it would all be behind him.
But what does Wright do instead? He spews this vile “God damn America” bile. What a psycho.
TPM Reader EM writes …
I keep hearing people say that Obama’s percentage of the white vote is decreasing markedly, including David Brooks on The NewsHour, and Michael Duffy on Washington Week (sorry–old habits). I haven’t seen stats on this, but I just did a little non-mathematician math. If, as I’ve heard reported more than once, 25% of Hillary’s MS vote was Limbaugh Republicans, the white vote that would actually support a Democrat looks somewhat different. The total vote was 420,751, and Hillary got 38% or around 160,000 votes. Give her the 10% of the black vote that she won and take away the Limbaugh votes, and that leaves her with around 120,000 white Democratic votes. Give Obama his 25% of the white vote, and that comes to about 65,000 white votes for him. The percentages? about 65% Clinton white, non-Limbaugh votes, 35% Obama white votes. That’s not a great number for Obama, but it’s considerably better than the one getting play.
Speaking for myself I think this ‘Limbaugh Democrat’ line is an interpretive rathole which is at best self-serving and mainly a distraction from the reality of all elections which is how many votes each candidate got. But you don’t have to get into this Limbaugh stuff to see why this decreasing white vote theory is nonsense. Perhaps there are national polls that show Obama with a decreasing share of the white vote though the aggregate national polls from Gallup and Rasmussen show no sign of it. But to draw this conclusion on the basis of the vote in Mississippi is to show an almost perverse ignorance of the country’s history.
Mississippi is arguably the most racially polarized state in the US. Two or three other Deep South states certainly give it a run for its money. But given the state’s history and political present it should not surprise anyone that the primary results were as polarized as they were (Whites — Clinton 70%, Obama 26%; Blacks Clinton 8%, Obama 92%). The difference here isn’t one of change over time; it’s change over geography. When Hillary and Obama go up against each other in the most racially polarized state in the country, you’re going to get a really racially polarized result.
That’s not a mystery. It’s a statement of the obvious.
It’s true that neighboring Alabama is similar to Mississippi in many ways. So how much did things change between Alabama on Super Tuesday and Mississippi this week?
Not a lot. Among white voters, Clinton did even better than she did in Mississippi, beating Obama 72% to 25%. Figuring in the margin of error in the exit polls themselves, those numbers are identical. But if you want to look at the exact numbers, it’s actually Clinton whose numbers among white voters ever so slightly diminished.
Maybe the deterioration will start now. Who knows? But based on the information available to date, the theory is nonsense, a product of reporters who don’t bother to come up to speed on the politics in the different states in question.
Top Hillary fundraiser pressures Dean to “exercise some leadership” on Florida and Michigan.
Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll of the Dem race shows a sizeable tightening of the race — from an 8 point Obama lead to a 1 point lead in a single day. It could be noise or the first sign of damage from the Wright imbroglio.
More on Mitt Romney’s dog fixation, Mark Penn loses his remaining dignity, and Lou Dobbs loses his mind, all in today’s episode of TPMtv …
I mentioned last week that we should pay close attention to those county and state conventions in the caucus states, because in many cases the delegate numbers we’re working with now are only estimates subject to these later conventions where the real decisions are actually made. Now comes news out of Iowa that after the county conventions that met today Barack Obama appears to be on track to net seven additional delegates out of the state.
From what the article says, the pick up does not appear to be directly at the expense of Sen. Clinton but rather a result of picking up support of a large percentage of the delegates John Edwards won back in January.
To give some context to these numbers, Sen. Clinton’s final net delegate haul out of her decisive win in Ohio was only 9 delegates.
A while back we noted that top Clinton advisor Harold Ickes had admonished the press not to use the phrase “super delegates” but instead to employ what he claims is the more accurate “automatic delegates.” The Clinton campaign has pushed for this change of phrase on the thinking that calling them “super delegates” carries a negative connotation that somehow they’re more powerful or privileges than other delegates. And that’s important because their path to the nomination will almost certainly have to rely on super delegates going overwhelmingly for Clinton despite Obama’s having the majority of pledged delegates.
Got that?
Anyway, has the AP gotten the message? In tonight’s AP report about Obama’s new delegates in Iowa reporter Mike Glover has adopted the Clinton campaign “automatic delegate” formulation.
Now, sometimes spinning campaigns come up with phrases that are so heavy-handedness and tendentious that it’s just ridiculous — the “death tax”, “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization, etc. In this case, I think you’ve probably got to have your head pretty deep in the delegat-ology weeds to have any sense of whether it matters to use one term over another.
But I think it’s a good journalistic principle not to switch terminology in the midst of an election campaign or public policy debate at the bidding of one party or another, unless someone makes an extremely good case that the existing word choices are patently misleading. And doing it at the behest of one party to the dispute is almost always bad practice. Otherwise the journalists whose job it is to sift through the spin become its messengers, wittingly or not.