Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

LITTWIN: Taking and giving political ground

By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 22, 2008 at 11 p.m.

Text size  
Supporters cheer as they wait at a Philadelphia hotel for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to appear for a Tuesday night celebration of her victory over Sen. Barack Obama in Pennyslvania's Democratic primary.

Photo by Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Supporters cheer as they wait at a Philadelphia hotel for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to appear for a Tuesday night celebration of her victory over Sen. Barack Obama in Pennyslvania's Democratic primary.

Related Stories

More News Columns & Blogs

More stories »

PHILADELPHIA — The headline is that Hillary Clinton wins here in Pennsylvania and the race goes on.

The real story, though, is that Barack Obama loses here in Pennsylvania - and that, once again, he failed to make the race go away.

You know the math. You've heard it before. At this point - deep into the primary season, deeper than anyone ever dreamed the Democratic race would go - there's virtually no chance that Clinton can catch Obama in pledged delegates and, barring a minor miracle, also no chance she can catch him in the popular vote.

Nothing that happened here - a 10-point Clinton win in what was expected to be a, uh, seven-point Clinton win - changed that calculus. And nothing that happened here is going to change any superdelegate's mind about making Clinton the nominee.

And yet, when campaigning early Tuesday in suburban Philadelphia, Clinton raised a point that will dog Obama until, or if, this race ends. She told a group of reporters, "Considering his financial advantage, the question ought to be, why can't he close the deal? Why can't he win a state like this?"

It was a self-serving question, of course, but, hey, this is politics, and self-serving is always the first serving you get. But it's a question Democrats have to be asking themselves with increasing urgency, particularly in light of how negative the campaign has become.

This isn't about Pennsylvania. There are lots of reasons why Obama wouldn't beat Clinton in Pennsylvania. Ed Rendell, the popular governor, campaigned full-time for her. Clinton's father grew up here and even played football at Penn State. He would teach little Hillary how to shoot a rifle - and, like you, I wish there were photos.

But most important, in a campaign where demographics are destiny, Pennsylvania was drawn for Clinton to win - a state with many older voters, blue-collar voters, gun-owning voters, Catholic voters, white voters and, of course, bitter voters.

It's the narrative that has gone wrong for Obama. Just ask your favorite uncommitted superdelegate - many of whom live in a town near you - whether the narrative has gone wrong. The supers - as I call them - were counting on a clear winner to emerge, a winner on a winning streak, a winner who leaves the primary campaign facing a clear path toward November, a clear winner who would allow our brave uncommitted supers to never have to make a tough decision at the Pepsi Center.

Instead, Obama, who had all the momentum, who still has a huge money lead, is - to use the obligatory sports metaphor - playing out the clock, staying just far enough ahead to win.

He didn't get blown out in Pennsylvania, but he didn't come nearly as close as he had hoped. He spent nearly three times as much money on TV ads as Clinton did in a state where he had six long weeks in which to make his case. That's a lot of time and lot of money to overcome demographics. The issue of race, which no one likes to talk about, is being talked about again.

And what has to be particularly disturbing for Democrats is that Clinton, in beating Obama, ran a Republican-like (or, as someone suggested, Republican-lite) campaign against him.

It wasn't just the negativity - although a New York Times editorial, basically blaming Clinton, called the campaign mean, vacuous and desperate. But look - as Obama likes to say - many of the problems Obama faced here were self-inflicted, particularly the bitter-gate issue.

It was how Obama was framed - as elitist, as out of touch with ordinary people, as connected to un-ordinary radicals, as not ready to lead America at a time - well, didn't you see the ad? - when Osama bin Laden is out there lurking. And it was how well it seemed to work.

Not only did Clinton get negative, Obama got negative back. In trying to keep Pennsylvania close, he risked looking like any other politician when his campaign is based on the fact that he's an entirely different kind of politician.

So, how wounded is Obama?

It depends on whom you ask. The exit pollsters asked many Pennsylvanians, and about a quarter of Clinton voters said they wouldn't vote for Obama in November.

Rendell called Clinton's victory a "political earthquake." At her victory party here at the Park Hyatt, in a room packed with cheering believers, Clinton immediately began a fundraising appeal, saying, "We can only keep winning if we can keep competing with an opponent who outspends us massively."

According to her campaign, she had raised $2.5 million from the time that cable TV networks called Pennsylvania for her.

She needs the money. Obama has over $40 million in the bank. Clinton was slightly in the red. And now the campaign moves to Indiana and North Carolina, which will vote on May 6.

Of course, there may not be enough money. There's almost no time left. Clinton made up only around 15 or so delegates in Pennsylvania. And forgive all the numbers, but Obama had a pledged delegate lead of 164, according to an Associated Press count going into Pennsylvania. And after the May 6 primaries, there are only 217 pledged delegates left to win.

Obama is favored to win in North Carolina (demographics again). And if he were to win in Indiana - considered a toss-up state - Obama could effectively end the primary campaign.

Of course, when have you heard that before?

littwinm@RockyMountainNews.com

Comments

  • April 23, 2008

    8:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bookwerm writes:

    Many of the folks in PA, same as in the rest of the nation, have their minds made up, and no amount of money, ads or begging will change that significantly. PA is a bit backwards, lots of folks in the rural, move slow, trust Clinton, don't like new things.
    If you want proof that folks make their minds up based on little research or input.. just think.. 4 yrs ago, somehow, a majority of Americans wanted 4 more yrs of Bush. That was something I never would have thought possible, knew scant people who could tolerate him.. anyone who reads a newspaper, sees the news, lives a real life, all knew and know how incredibly incompetent Bush is as Prez.... well, these are the same kind of people, but they support Clinton instead..

  • April 23, 2008

    10:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JYP3500 writes:

    Bookwerm, I felt the same way about Bill Clinton being elected for a 2nd term...how could so many people (43%) be that dumb. And history proved me right.

    Littwin, you must be dreaming if you think the Clintons will gracefully drop out, regardless of the outcome from the remaining states. Hillary is simply more electable and can win the nomination with the help of the super delegates.

    Someone put a fork in Barack, he's done. When will the Democrats learn they need to vet their candidates before the primaries?

    All the money being wasted on Barack's campaign is a real shame. It could be used for a more worthwhile cause, like rebuilding New Orleans.

  • April 23, 2008

    10:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    how did history prove you right JYP? We had a fantastic economy in the 90's. Clinton didn't start any bogus wars. I don't understand why you are saying that.

  • April 23, 2008

    12:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JYP3500 writes:

    Spencer, you don't remember Monica, blue dress, impeachment, he accomplished absolutely nothing in his 2nd term, the moral decay of not being accountable or responsible for your actions, etc. The "fantastic economy" was based on a lie (see dot.bombs & resulting market crash). And the reason we are having world issues today...Ole Slick was too busy playing his flute (trombone?) instead of leading. Oh yeah, but the French loved us.

  • April 23, 2008

    3:08 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    arby writes:

    JYP 3500
    Hate to tell you but slick plays the sax. It's Monica that plays the flute. And yes we did have money in the bank when he left office. We are now in debt up to our eyeballs. Can Hill/Bill get us back on track? I don't know. But they do have a track record that the others don't. And what Bill or anyone else does in their off hours isn't our business. The impeachment was just BS cooked up by Newt who has since been proven a bigger jerk than the Clintons. Besides Bill isn't running, although I imagine his advise may be asked. I least I hope so. We didn't have 300,000 Americans wounded and 4,000 killed in a phoney war that we had no business starting. With no plan on how to finish the job. During his shift. "Mission Accomplished" yeah right!

  • April 23, 2008

    3:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Konyok writes:

    Clinton managed the economy well. He was lucky to be in position when the Reagan reforms began bearing fruit, especially lucky that the Resolution Trust Corp. liquidated the assets from the failed savings and loans during his term.
    However, towards the end of his presidency, just when the high tech industry was reaching saturation point, the Clinton Justice Department decided to press the anti trust suit against Microsoft. Overnight the tech bubble burst, then the attacks of 9/11 almost destroyed the airline industry. Bush applied the classic Keynesian fix to stave off deflation, which equals depression, and went on a spending spree. Out of the frying pan, into the fire - now we face inflation.
    Both Democratic candidates are arguing for policies guaranteed to worsen the economy - tax increases and trade protectionism. Exactly the policies followed by Herbert Hoover after the crash of 1929 that lead to the Great Depression.
    In balance, Clinton did well with the economy, but he wasn't a miracle worker - he played the hand that he had skillfully.
    It's still too early to score Bush, but it is reasonable to say that he has not been as adroit as Clinton was.
    The one thing that we can say about Bush is that we have not had a major terrorist attack in this country since 2001. That is not a coincidence.

  • April 24, 2008

    11:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    scastaneda writes:

    arby:
    "And what Bill or anyone else does in their off hours isn't our business."
    You doof! If the prez fools around on his wife, that's their business. But if he perjures himself under oath in a sexual misconduct trial, then it's MY business!
    And if his wife's political ambition allows her to look the other way, then why would you support her in that ambition? It's obviously her most important "value." What sort of person thinks blind ambition is an attractive character trait?

  • April 24, 2008

    12:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    arby writes:

    scastaneda
    I didn't say Hill/Bill were perfect. I said out of the choices we have they are the best choice. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, the big boys in the back room will make the decision. Not you or me. And that's the way it works. Wish it wasn't, but that is the truth.

  • April 24, 2008

    12:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    scastaneda writes:

    I never said that you said they were perfect. I simply pointed out that you repeated the left's favorite lie, that B.J. Clinton was unfairly persecuted by "Newt." He wasn't. He testified under oath in a signed deposition that he didn't sleep with Monica. He later admitted (on television, remember) that he lied. They didn't try to impeach him for fooling around, it was for perjury and obstruction of justice. VERY SERIOUS charges for the person who is supposed to be our chief law-enforcement official. The vote went straight down party lines, so at least one party doesn't believe perjury and obstruction are serious.

    The fact that his "wife" (more like business partner) stuck with him shows her character. She should have castrated and divorced him. Then I'd respect her. Unfortunately, other voters do not demand self-respect from their candidates, only blind ambition.

  • April 24, 2008

    12:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    scastaneda writes:

    And furthermore, arby, you say "the big boys in the back room will make the decision. Not you or me." If you truly believe that, then why would you waste your time even reading Litwin's column????????????
    He can't write, or rather if he can, then he doesn't try hard enough to show it. Just read PerezHilton.com and stop worrying about the political process.

  • April 25, 2008

    7:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Achilles writes:

    Here's a challenge for you: aside from allowing people to commit infanticide, can you name three other liberal positions that frees people from government control rather than assigns them to it?

  • April 25, 2008

    9:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    arby writes:

    John_II

    Which party is willing to free people from government control?
    Neither one. They both have their own agendas but neither agenda has anything to do with letting us run our own lives. Who's fault is that? Ours! By becoming pigs at the trough rather than remaining free roaming hunters. So the last of the hunters are packed up in DC. You don't believe Colorado or any other state has any real say so anymore do you?