England for Obama

If there was any doubt what the reaction of the Obama campaign would be to yesterday’s defeats in Texas and Ohio, today’s comments by Barack indicate that it will be a tougher line against his Democratic Party opponent. Seemingly signaling that his losses were in no small part due to the media over-reacting to Clinton’s claim that she was being unfairly treated by the press pack, Obama hit back today:

“She made the experience argument that she has been making repeatedly, particularly around foreign policy and her ability to handle a crisis. I think it’s important to examine that claim and not just allow her to assert it, which I think has been going on for quite some time,” Obama said.

Instead of using his usual message that he is better equipped to lead on foreign policy because he showed better judgment than Clinton by opposing the Iraq war early on, Barack bluntly derided Clinton’s assertion that her eight years as first lady counted as foreign policy experience:

“I hope people start asking, what exactly is this foreign experience that she’s claiming? I know she talks about visiting 80 countries, it’s not clear, was she negotiating treaties or agreements, or was she handling crises during this period of time?” Obama asked.

He fired back about suggestions by the Clinton campaign that they should examine Obama’s ties to a Chicago property developer, Tony Rezko, who is currently facing federal corruption charges. Obama suggested Clinton’s record on ethics should be fair game, too he said:

“She’s made the argument that she’s thoroughly vetted in contrast to me,” Obama said. “I think it’s important to examine that argument because, if the suggestion is somehow that on issues of ethics or disclosure or transparency, that somehow she’s going to have a better record than I have, and will be better able to withstand Republican attacks, I think that’s an issue that should be tested.”

Obama also attacked claims that Clinton’s wins in big states like California and Ohio were more significant than his sweep of 11 smaller states in a row:

“This notion that somehow the, all the states I win, are somehow are not bellwether states, but the states that Senator Clinton wins, those are the important ones, is a strange way of keeping score and I don’t think it makes much sense.”

Whilst all this is valid criticism of the media’s recent conversion to all things Clinton, there is a tremendous danger of damaging his credentials as the candidate who unites by such negative attacks. If it’s a short lived tactic to once again realign the media’s critical eye on his opponent, all well and good. If however it’s a sign of things to come, the only winner can surely be Clinton.

There is more than a little dismay in Democratic Party circles today. Not because Clinton won the popular vote in both of her “firewall” states of Ohio and Texas, but because of how she won and what it means.

Reading today’s headlines you’d be forgiven for thinking that Obama was expected to win both Texas and Ohio, but in truth both contests were statistically impossible hurdles for Obama. He did well to make up so much ground in Texas, but Ohio was always going to be an uphill struggle, as we pointed out last week. But the results of the two contests hide some interesting, and potentially disturbing facts.

The first fact should be a cause for concern for Obama’s campaign team: late voters (those who made up their minds in the last 3 days) opted for Clinton in large numbers, whilst early voters backed Barack. The conclusion is that the negative campaigning - most notably the 3am phone call ad - worked. Hillary found the chink in Barack’s Teflon armour and exploited it in a similar fashion one might expect of McCain’s camp. That opening will need to be plugged by Obama’s team if he’s to succeed in November (assuming he wins the nomination of his Party).

The second fact is more worrying for the Democratic Party: Clinton potentially won Texas because of tactical Republican support. If she hadn’t won Texas, the headlines would likely be screaming a different story - that Clinton was finished and she should save the Party further division by stepping aside. But Clinton didn’t lose Texas, instead she narrowly took the lion share of the popular vote, and that win together with Ohio gives her credibility to continue argue the media. How much credibility does Clinton deserve if it turned out to be tactical and ephemeral Republican votes which won it for her though?

Clinton does the opposite to Obama when it comes to Republican voters. While his collegiate campaign encourages disillusioned Republicans to support him, Republicans are united in their hatred of Hillary Clinton. That hasn’t prevented the bastion of right-wing propaganda, Fox News, nor fiercely conservative radio talkshow hosts like Rush Limbaugh openly supporting Hillary Clinton as their best hope for a McCain victory in November:

“I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They’re in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch, and it’s all going to stop if Hillary loses. So, yeah, I’m asking people to cross over and, if they can stomach it — I know it’s a difficult thing to do, to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it’s something I think we need. It would be fun, too,” explained Limbaugh recently.

The Republicans are desperate for sure, but there’s some evidence to support the notion that Clinton did indeed win because of additional, and altogether bogus, Republican support in these open contests.

In Wisconsin - a contest which Obama won - Republicans made up 9% of the Democratic primary vote. Obama won them 72-28 over Clinton. But in Ohio, where once again 9% of voters were Republicans, Obama and Clinton split them evenly, 49-49.

The story in Texas, where Limbaugh has the most listeners of any of these states, was even worse. Although Obama won the Republican vote 52-47, self-proclaimed conservatives (22% of all voters) went against Obama. For the first time, they were Clinton’s best ideological group: and they broke 53-43 for her. More tellingly, Clinton won 13% of the people who said Obama was the most electable candidate. So, at least 13% of the conservatives did indeed hold their noses and vote tactically against McCain’s biggest threat - Barack Obama.

None of this changes the fact that the headlines are full of claims that Clinton is clawing her way back into contention. Nothing, not even the facts, can change those idiotic stories. Amongst the well-informed and thinking superdelegates the reality of last night is unlikely to be ignored. The best hope the Republicans have for victory is a lengthy and increasingly bitter Democratic contest, which ironically demonstrates division even where there is none, with Hillary Clinton emerging as the Democratic candidate.

In the days ahead, if this message has indeed sunk in, expect superdelegates to back Obama over Clinton in increasing numbers. The contest is now not really in voter’s hands, but in theirs. It’s time for the ‘men in grey suits’ to speak up loud and clear. “It’s time for change” they must say. It’s time to unite behind the one who can beat the Republicans. It’s time for Barack Obama.

Obama may have lost a hard fought battle for votes in Texas and Ohio but the race is far from over.

As of today Obama has 1,477 total delegates from 24 states. This puts him just ahead of Hillary Clinton who has 1,391 delegates from 16 states.

In a rallying and thoughtful speech recorded in San Antonio just before the Texas results Obama congratulated Hillary Clinton and John Mcain on their recent victories. He then went on to remind the public of his roadmap for change in America:

It (change) begins on street corners and front porches; in living rooms and meeting halls with ordinary Americans who see the world as it is and realize that we have it within our power to remake the world as it should be.

The full speech can be viewed here:

Video: Obama’s Remarks in San Antonio

Next Key Primary Dates

• Wyoming (caucus): 8 March
• Mississippi: 11 March
• Pennsylvania: 22 April
• North Carolina: 6 May

How can a young and overly charismatic convince a cynical voter that he really does have the nounce to run for President?

This is how.