The fight heats up:
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the second-ranking party leader in the Senate, says President Bill Clinton’s comments about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) are getting “too personal” and called on the former president to refrain from attacking Obama’s integrity.
“I’m really troubled by his questioning the sincerity of Barack Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq,” Durbin said. “I really think it is unfortunate to question Barack’s sincerity on the war. He has been there from the start, opposing this war.”
Meanwhile, Claire McCaskill, joins Tim Johnson, and Ben Nelson in endorsing Obama. I read this development two ways…on the one hand these endorsements are coming from very conservative senators. On the other hand, the conservatism of their respective electorates probably explains their preference better than their affinity for the candidates or their policies. What do I mean?
I mean that South Dakota, Nebraska, and Missouri might be better fits for the kind of New Democrat policies the Clintons espouse, but Hillary’s personality (or reputation) overwhelms that. What’s remarkable is that the senators would rather go with a black politician from Chicago than with Hillary Clinton. In a weird sort of way this is a good thing and a sign of progress in the way rural America looks at race. But it is strange to see.
Dear Democrats, I beg of thee, do not make Hil your nominee.
Obama is seen as conservative on the fiscal ledger and progressive on social issues. We wait for his plan.
The GOP are salivating for Hillary, preparing for her to be the nominee.
They’ve posted the Hillary Spendometer.
HRC’s proposed spending reads good – her $5,000 baby bonus for each child born in the U.S – will be music to the ears of many in the party.
But here comes the GOP spin. She’ll need to raise taxes as the economy Is in recession, falling revenues will impact her proposals.
She’ll need to raise taxes as the economy Is in recession
Because if she tries to borrow the money, she may find that tab maxxed about because of Bush’s war.
Getting back to Obama’s rural appeal, this is not unprecedented that ‘rural’ states would go for a black candidate. By the time Jesse ran in 1984, people were hurting because of Reaganomics. Jesse came to visit white townspeople who wouldn’t have normally voted for a black man–and some flew the rebel flag (I heard about this in places like West Virginia and Missouri) AND shook his hand, hoping that he would draw attention to their plight:
This from the NYT, dated 1988:
and also this excerpt from Keep Hope Alive: Jesse Jackson’s 1988 Presidential Campaign.
Wisconsin, with only a black population of 4%, went for Jackson in a big way in their primary because dairy farmers were hurting and towns were depressed.
Better check out what local issues are brewing for ‘rural’ places bordering Illini, and elsewhere. Recession usually hits out of the way joints like this first and hardest.
I can only speak to Missouri. I think it’s three things:
So to the extent that Claire was going to endorse anybody, I don’t think this endorsement is much of a surprise.
btw – for some reason I find it very funny that you call McCaskill a rural senator. Yes most of the state is rural, but aren’t most? Are Bob Casey and Arlan Spector rural senators? I’ve driven through Pennsylvania – lots of rural areas … In fact, what IS a rural state?
Or is it HER that you think is rural? McCaskill (like all Democrats) won the state by getting huge turnout in the cities and depressing Republican turnout in the rural areas. I think of her personally, as urban.
Or is this just East Coast Librul Elitism rearing its ugly head 🙂
Missouri is a bit like Pennsylvania, with Kansas City being like Pittsburgh and St. Louis like Philly. I can see that. Yet, McCaskill is still developing a voting record that more nearly resembles that of a prairie state senator than a rust best senator. And I think she would endorse Hillary if not for the bad reputation she has as a ‘liberal’ in her state.
I think you should examine your East Coast Elitist conscience on this use of “rural” – cuz it sounds pejorative to me 🙂
I think if Claire was choosing to endorse solely on issues she’d probably endorse Hillary. You’re right, she is a conservative Democrat (although it’s interesting that she became MORE conservative when she got to Washington, which is something none of us in Missouri really understand). But politics isn’t just issues its … politics. I think she endorsed him for the three reasons I put above. None of which were based on issues.
We’re on a roll endorsing Obama here in the eastern part of the state:
So, in part Obama is seen as the local guy here in St. Louis. But, also, McCaskill isn’t tied in with the old time Gephardt machine. In fact I’m not sure Gephardt helped her much in the 2006 election. Mayor Slay, for instance, is very tied into the Gephardt camp and thus made the politically stupid move of endorsing Hillary months ago. He could have garnered a lot of goodwill from the St. Louis black community (which he is in need of for a number of reason) but was strongarmed by the Gephardt camp into endorsing Hillary. So, issues have very little to do with most of the endorsements.
Maybe you should examine your urban bias, since rural is a neutral term 😉
In Booman’s defense, not that he needs it, McCaskill won by going after Jim Talent in the rural areas of Missouri.
And to a certain extent told us Metropolitan based Dems. vote for me, because the alternative is Jim Talent.
oh, I know. I’m just teasing BooMan because he’s prejudiced against the midwest 😉
But she didn’t win the rural areas, she just caused Talent to win by less.
I remember election night and watching returns. You know how it is — all Republican until the cities/suburbs come in at the end.
Newbies didn’t understand why we were so excited as returns kept coming in showing her losing and we’d say – but the margin is GREAT! Talent is winning by less than he should.
We need that again AND big turnout from the cities. You have a big race on your side — for Congress, right? Will Kay Barnes bring them out?
btw – I’m not defending any of McCaskill’s votes in Congress – especially FISA. I’m very vocal over at ShowMeProgress about my disappointment in her record. And her staff is tired of me calling, I’m sure.
I should give her credit where due – she didn’t vote for Kyle-Lieberman.
Yes, I think Congressman Graves will be home on the farm this time next year. His lost will allow him to spend more time with his family.
Arkansas also borders your state, although I doubt there is much, if any, media penetration. But I don’t suppose the Ozarks are too pro-Clinton.
Well, we’re bordered by Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahamo, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa.
There are two major media markets (Kansas City Missouri and St. Louis Missouri) that overlap into Kansas and Illinois respectively. There’s a decent sized media market in Springfield Missouri (the Ozarks) that may overlap some into Northwestern Arkansas area. The other decent sized media market is in the center of the state where Jefferson City (the state capital) and Columbia (the University of Missouri) are.
The Ozarks (southwestern Missouri) would not be pro-Clinton. That is John Ashcroft/Roy Blunt territory and is where the forces of evil gather. It is not pro – ANY Democrat. Southeastern Missouri isn’t much better.
It is specifically this part of the state that we want to stay quiet and depressed about the Republican ticket. It’s all very much guided by churches down there. If we were really lucky, Mitt Romney would get the nomination. If we are unfortunate, it will be Huckabee.
I wonder how black evangelicals would respond to a Clinton-Huckabee race. I suspect that Huckabee could make not insignificant inroads there, particularly if there is lingering resentment over the defeat of Obama.
It’s an interesting question that I hadn’t thought about. I would normally guess that Black Evangelicals in my state would go Democratic but that’s because all the Black Evangelicals that I know are in St. Louis. Of course Democratic turnout in the cities is key so those are the people to be worried about.
I hadn’t wondered if Huckabee could cut into that support – but it’s possible. He comes across as a good man. (I haven’t looked into his black support in Arkansas, that would be interesting.) And his populism would help him. And if, as you say, they are angry at Clinton, it could turn them.
Although to be fair if Obama wasn’t running the black community would be wholeheartedly supporting Clinton. There was huge support for Bill. One of Al Gore’s stupider moves in 2000 was to refuse requests by the St. Louis Black community to have Bill Clinton come to GOTV. If you are going to carry Missouri you have to have huge turnout in the cities. We didn’t. Clinton could have helped Gore.
One thing to keep in mind about Huckabee is that parol issue. The man that he helped get out on parol went on to rape and murder a woman – in Missouri. So if Huckabee is the nominee southern Missouri can expect to see lots of attack ads about that. It could help blunt some Evangelical fervor. At least that’s what we hope 🙂
I’m a Black Evangelical – my take on that question was posted here.
your take on it doesn’t surprise me. I disagree with you, but that’s not the point. I think your position will be shared by many and it could have an effect on the election.
Interesting. But I think a President Huckabee would be a disaster purely on the grounds that his choices for the Supreme Court would, imo, be disastrous.
Via Antonio French, one of the local bloggers:
Full disclosure: I think Antonio does some work for Obama campaign. But he works hard on his blog and it’s generally accurate factually. I hadn’t heard this story before though.
wow.
If memory serves, most Dem presidents inherit a downturned economy from their Rep predecessor. This one will particularly nasty and Hillary would be severely handicapped from getting one iota of bipartisan agreement.
Rural parts of the country, big & little ag have been suffering droughts, tainted products, excessive fuel costs, etc. and they’re tapped.
This country doesn’t have the luxury anymore to spend time on Hillary bashing.
good post:
http://agonist.org/stirling_newberry/20080112/recessions_stimulus_and_broken_politics
.
TPM – Compare And Contrast: Hillary And Obama’s Votes On Iraq
Especially interesting are the posted comments and links added to article:
The warnings were made/implied in the Senate, which has a lot more credibility than the blogosphere. Some Senators did read the PNAC guide to regime change without WMD’s.
Levin’s Resolution
H/T: Links for you to explore other amendments that would have provided checks and balances, and more importantly “prevented a war”.
Of course Hillary Clinton joined Joe Lieberman on his untimely Iran resolution! The best explanation is her dependance on the Jewish vote in her home state and AIPAC support.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."