I thought David Broder has wearied of ridicule and decided to clean up his act. But, today, he’s back to wanking and concern trolling. Look at this:
Obama’s inability to win any of the major states except his home base, Illinois, and Georgia, where he could count on the black vote in Atlanta, is worrisome enough. His failure to mobilize and deliver the votes of blue-collar, middle- and lower-income white families that are the backbone of the traditional Democratic Party has to be even more concerning to the superdelegates, as are the gaffes that have begun to mar Obama’s personal performance.
What’s a ‘major state’? If a major state is any state that has at least 10 Electoral College votes then Obama won seven of them: Washington (11), Missouri (11), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Illinois (21), Virginia (13), and Georgia (15). He’s also poised to win North Carolina (15) and is competitive in Indiana (11). If we expand the criteria a bit, Obama also won Louisiana (9) and Colorado (9) in landslides. Should it concern supporters of Hillary Clinton that she lost so many reliably blue states and was crushed in purple states like Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, and (most likely) North Carolina? If some pundits are worried that Obama might not win Ohio and Pennsylvania, shouldn’t they be equally worried that Clinton cannot win in Minnesota and Wisconsin?
Hillary Clinton got the support of 8% of black voters in Pennsylvania. That would appear to be a bigger problem than Obama’s weakness with ‘blue-collar, middle- and lower-income white families that are the backbone of the traditional Democratic Party.’ I’d say black voters are more of the traditional backbone of the Democratic Party than a group that is often referred to as ‘Reagan Democrats’.
And leave it to Broder to perpetuate another act of McCain hagiography.
Yet, in pointing to those vulnerabilities in her rival, Clinton has heightened the most obvious liability she would carry into a fight against McCain. In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest.
Not assumed to be willing to sacrifice his personal credibility by whom? This is a guy that couldn’t say that he had problems with the Confederate Flag during the 2000 South Carolina primary. From a April 19, 2000 article:
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) — Former GOP presidential candidate John McCain called for the removal of the Confederate battle flag from atop the South Carolina Statehouse on Wednesday, acknowledging that his refusal to take such a stance during his primary battle for the Palmetto State was a “sacrifice of principle for personal ambition.”
…When asked by a reporter how he felt about the Confederate flag during a January 12 campaign event, McCain replied: “Personally, I see the flag as symbol of heritage.”
The Arizona senator expressed regret for that stance on Wednesday, telling the audience of Republicans: “I feared that if I answered honestly, I could not win the South Carolina primary. So I chose to compromise my principles.”
“I promised to tell the truth always about my intentions and beliefs. I fell short of that standard in South Carolina,” McCain said.
That’s a straightforward example from the historical record of John McCain ‘sacrific[ing] personal credibility to prevail in [a political] contest.’ You know what else happened at the end of that 2000 primary? Once McCain realized he was going to lose, he ripped the evangelical base of the GOP.