From what I've seen, it appears that both Texas and Ohio are close, and most pundits expect Clinton to win at least Ohio, if not both states. Rhode Island should go to her, and Vermont should go overwhelmingly to Obama. Given the way these states distribute delegates, though, it is likely that not much will change in the overall race. There are some who will call for Clinton to drop out if she doesn't win both of the big states, but there are no signs that she will do so. It is mathematically impossible for her and mathematically improbable for Obama (he'd have to get almost 90% of remaining delegates) to secure the nomination, so it is almost certainly going to be up to the convention later this year to decide things. I saw one guy last night talk about how even if Obama is ahead in the delegate race, if Hillary can win some of these late states, she can make a 'moral victory' case for attracting superdelegates to her.
Regardless of who ultimately wins, having the Democrat race drag out only helps McCain.
The thing that will be interesting to see here is just how many Republicans 'pimp' themselves to vote for Clinton, just to keep the Democrats fighting amongst themselves. It's a tough call - many Reps have such loathing for Clinton that there could also be a fair number of them that vote for Obama just because they want to see her go down at all costs.
The most entertaining piece of this is the identity politics. In the Democrat party, you see a definite segmentation of voters by things like gender, race, and economic class. Clinton is pulling the least educated and poorest voters in large numbers, as well as women. Blacks are overwhelmingly going for Obama, despite economic class. The black minority is far smaller than the female minority, but they tend to have louder voices at times. When this thing all comes down to the convention, it will be very interesting to see which group wins out. It's no surprise that this is what will ultimately be the deciding factor, though, because the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are extremely small. We'll see how this thing plays out...but don't expect anything to be decided today.
In other election news, Obama is continuing to get some serious scrutiny. Thinking Democrats appear to be coming out of the honeymoon phase with Obama, nervously suggesting that he needs to finally start talking about more than change and hope. This evasion by Obama is becoming more and more evident, as described by this article in American Thinker, where Lee Cary highlights several instances where Obama slithered around an actual answer, playing word games to try to look like he was answering without really saying anything of substance. Very slippery.
Michelle Malkin highlights how Obama has said that his Christian faith allows him to approve of same-sex marriages and abortion. Say what? He invokes scripture to add emphasis:
"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."
Never mind the fact that Romans is quite clear (and well known), Malkin cites Terry Jeffrey at CNS with another famous line from the Sermon on the Mount:
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."
Obama also shows unequivocal support for Jeremiah Wright, his extreme racist, black-supremacy pastor.
The New York Post reports on the extreme backlash of Jewish voters when it comes to Obama:
Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind yesterday predicted that Jewish voters would make "a mass movement toward Sen. McCain" if Barack Obama knocks Hillary Rodham Clinton out of the race in tomorrow's critical Democratic primaries.
Hikind, an Orthodox Jew whose Borough Park district includes the largest Hasidic bloc in the United States, blasted Obama for what he called his half-hearted support of Israel and his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who has repeatedly praised anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has endorsed Obama.
There are also questions about Obama's readiness for the Oval Office in light of some of his recent statements. For example, Obama recently hammered Hillary Clinton for not reading an NIE before voting for the war in Iraq. He cited Jay Rockefeller as the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee as recommending reading it before voting against the war. Problem is, Obama is totally wrong. Hot Air says:
If we look at the 2002 vote on the authorization to use military force in Iraq, we see Jay Rockefeller's name in the "yea" column, not among the nays. He cast the same exact vote as Hillary Clinton, which was to support the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein.
In fact, Rockefeller didn't just passively vote "yea" in the Senate. He gave a speech on October 10, 2002, prior to the vote, exhorting his colleagues to support the AUMF and the invasion of Iraq.
How does a "brilliant" candidate make such a huge error? The very point that Obama wants to make is that his judgment is somehow superior to Hillary Clinton's — and John McCain's — despite having almost no experience in national office and none at all in any kind of executive leadership position. Yet here he is, trying to use Rockefeller as an example of better judgment, and it turns out that Obama couldn't be bothered to do a minute's worth of research first.
In another questionable exchange, Instapundit reports on the NAFTA flap. As Clinton and Obama traded shots in a recent debate, Obama had stated that he would pull out of NAFTA. Later, the news came out that the Obama campaign had called Canada and told them not to worry - it was just campaign rhetoric. Both the campaign and Canada initially denied the contact, but they have now admitted it and tried to spin it as an informal conversation rather than an official communication. This is disturbing on several levels. First, Obama is not being straight with us about his policy plans. Second, he is willing to throw an official treaty under the bus to score a few points in a debate. Third, he throws around policy statements on the fly without fully understanding the ramifications of his statements. And, most importantly, get a load of this comment at Instapundit:
And reader Matt Szekely observes: "If Obama can't handle a goody two shoes country like Canada how the heck is he going to deal with Iran, Syria, China, Russia, France and other countries that have a somewhat higher level of difficulty? . . . This is like watching someone get bucked off one of the coin op kiddies horses they have at the supermarket."
This is a great point! If Obama can get rolled by Canada, a country that is essentially a lapdog which depends on us for military and economic security, does Obama really expect us to believe that he can stand up to radical Islamic dictators?
Speaking of which, interestingly (but not surprisingly), Obama and Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad agree on what the U.S. should do about Iraq. Hm, let's think about that...if our enemies who have sworn to destroy us agree with the Democrat candidate on foreign policy, shouldn't that cause some concern...?
Peter Kirsanow lists some questions that the MSM refuses to ask Obama. Too bad - they would actually let us know what he stands for. I'm sure that's why he isn't volunteering the information.
So why doesn't any of this stick to Obama? Rush Limbaugh says the answer is simple: his followers don't care. They simply want to feel good and hear warm fuzzies, and that's where Obama excels.
So, where are we now? Today's results should be informative, but nothing will be decided. Obama is still gathering followers, but some of the more clear-thinking Dems are beginning to sense he needs more than platitudes to beat McCain. The Republicans would benefit from a protracted Democrat battle (which looks likely), especially because they don't appear to be willing to pick a fight with Obama themselves. Fortunately, Clinton is supremely good at picking fights and playing dirty. Ironically, this is one time when the Republicans should be glad she's as proficient as she is.
Isn't politics great?
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment