Hillary Clinton's Name Will Go Into Nomination
After weeks of tortured negotiations, the Obama campaign (which now in effect controls the Democratic National Committee) has agreed to allow Sen. Hillary Clinton's name to be placed in nomination.
This is more than just symbolic. It shows the degree to which Obama's team is now willing to try to woo former Clinton supporters into the Obama camp in November. One might also call it an admission that the Obama campaign is desperate to win the support of the 20 percent or so of her 18 million supporters who have been telling pollsters they will not vote for Sen. Barack Obama.
A Lifetime TV poll last week showed that, and: "While Obama is doing well with minority women, with support from 89% of African-Americans and 62% of Hispanics, McCain garnered support from nearly half of Caucasian women surveyed (47% vs. 38% for Obama). Hispanic women (14%) were more undecided than African-Americans (4%) or Caucasians (11%)."
It's not entirely coincidental that the decision was announced one day after a new Pew Research Center poll showed the race between Obama and Sen. John McCain in a statistical dead heat. Just one month earlier, Obama enjoyed a comfortable 8 percent lead over McCain.
In the interim, Obama took what was widely described in the media as a triumphant Middle East and European tour, including a speech in Germany with an outdoor audience of some 200,000 in attendance. Obama enjoyed a short-lived bounce in the polls following that tour. But the fact it has quickly disappeared is bad news for his campaign.
Key to Obama's chances for victory in the fall is his appeal to white women, 40+, a key support group for Clinton. At least as of the end of last month, he was doing very poorly by historical standards with this group:
According to the latest Fox News survey, Obama is winning among women under 40 by 13 points, but McCain is winning among women aged 41-45 by four points. Among women 50 and over, McCain is three points ahead. Obama's 48-35 lead among women under 40 is normal for a Democrat, but to trail among women in their 40s by 45-41 and by women over 50 by 38-35 is extraordinary. The problem is that older women don't like Obama as much as younger women do. While 70 percent of women under 40 have a favorable opinion of the Democratic candidate, only 58 percent of women in their 40s feel the same way, and only 52 percent of those over 50 see him favorably. For a Democrat to be losing among women over 40 is without precedent in the past 20 years.
Clearly the Obama campaign is starting to pay attention to this group, but there may not be enough time for him to win it over. Allowing Senator Clinton's name to be placed in nomination is a good start, but Obama needs to do more, much more. The Internet is rife with websites launched after Clinton conceded in June (JustSayNoDeal.com) and some of them threaten that there is nothing Obama can do at this point to win their support. Another good move, unlikely to be made but a good idea nonetheless, would be a public apology by Obama and DNC Chair Howard Dean to Clinton for not chastising media commentators who made blatantly sexist remarks about Clinton during her campaign. Will we see that much humility from the Obama/Dean team? Again, unlikely, but it should be considered. Not only can Senator Obama not afford to lose these voters to Republican McCain, he cannot afford for them to stay home on Election Day.
Tags: presidential election 2008 | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | John McCain | Democratic National Convention
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (75) | Print
Reader Comments
ANOTHER FIXED ELECTION
The OLD BOYS CLUB/PARTY BOSSES of the Democratic party fixed the nomitation. They shook down the banking industry and fed the money to Obama.
PUMA
I am happy that Senator Clinton's name will be placed in nomination, it would be simply ludicrous if her name wasn't placed in nomination. Sadly, if this is purely a symbolic event, we will clearly all be aware of it, and it IS sad because I know Obama can't win and Hillary can. I don't care what Obama-Media says, and I know we've already had the American media dictate our reality for far too long, and worse, we have allowed the news media to make the news, but the truth is that Obama doesn't stand a chance of winning the general election if he is the nominee.
Obama didn't win the popular vote, nor the big blue dem states, nor the all important purple swing states, and he mainly won red republican states by caucus. He is an extremely weak candidate because of this, and also the fact that he is very inexperienced, has a flimsy resume, a questionable record, and a disturbing background. Beyond that, Obama outspent Hillary 4 to 1 in places like PA, and Hillary just kept winning and winning, especially toward the end, which is a bad sign for Obama. Obama only made it this far because the media has been in the tank for him, protecting and promoting him, while never vetting him as they concentrated on attacking the Clinton's and Hillary's supporters. Absolutely no one will forget that delegates were stolen from Hillary and given to Obama, no one will forget the under-handed actions at the caucuses, and no one will forget that accusations of racism and methods of misogyny were used for politcal gain.
NONE of it will be rewarded with my vote. There are millions of democrats who will not vote for Obama, and one need not look any farther than the exit polls to see that a HUGE number of democrats will not vote for Obama. You have to remember that the media covered up all of Obama's shocking associates and history until the very end, and not even Pastor Wright hit the mainstream media until a year after he was first interviewed on Fox. Clearly there has been a media cover-up, not unlike what was done for Edwards. Only a small child would not be able to see that.
Beyond that, Hillary was called on to quit since Iowa and she kept winning and winning. It doesn't matter what the media says, and it doesn't matter what the "changed" dem party big tops say: MORE people want Hillary and MORE people said they would not vote for Obama if he got the official dem nom.
It's either Hillary or McCain in 2008. I want a democrat NOW, but if Obama gets the dem nom, obviously McCain will be president, and then I will furiously wait until 2012.
DEMOCRATS are USED to losing and waiting...and waiting...
Nothing new!!
That's why I am TIRED of waiting, and we need to elect the stronger candidate NOW.
Hillary Clinton for president in 08 OR 12.
Just Say No Deal
Puma Pac
The Denver Group
P.U.M.A.
Hillary a "Hulking Beast"?
Mike Frazier -- You really need to retool that metaphor, son. It is inaccurate, silly and not terribly flattering.
By the way, what IS Hillary's "experience," exactly? She's only ever held one elected position, and the rest of her resume consists primarily of being "Bill's Wife," along with some corporate board seats (courtesy of being "Bill's Wife") and a modicum of early lawyering in Arkansas.
She is certainly a capable person, but she has "cracked the glass ceiling" largely by marrying an ambitious politician, and piggybacking on his career. The way her supporters have spun it, she's Winston Churchill, Mother Teresa and Sonic the Hedgehog combined. I just don't see it. I remember the Clinton Administrations, and her "co-presidency" was largely contrived.
As for Obama, he responded rather intelligently and forcefully to the Georgia situation. (There are TV cameras and microphones even in Hawaii!) Like McCain, he was in contact with the Georgian President and urging UN involvement. Unlike McCain, he didn't immediately start threatening Russia, or "presumptuously" send his own delegation to meet with America's crackpot ally. I was very pleased to see that Obama didn't immediately make threats we can't back up, in a situation that is vastly more complex than "Georgia good," "Russia bad."
advertisement
