The corporate media have been quick to buy into and promote the Hillary Clinton campaign claim that she won the Pennsylvania primary by "double digits," but the truth is, that involves a bit of creative rounding.
The final figures for the vote are that Clinton won 1,258,245 votes out of 2,300,542 cast, compared to 1,042,297 for Barack Obama.
If you do the math, that works out to 54.71 percent for Clinton, and 45.31 percent for Obama.
Now granted, if you use the convention of rounding up numbers 5 or above and rounding down numbers below 4 and below, you get 55 percent for Clinton and 45 percent for Obama. But if you take the actual numbers, 54.71 and 45.31, and calculate the difference, it works out to 9.40 percent. And that is a number closer to 9 than to 10.
That is to say, it is more correct to say either that Clinton won by 9.4 percent, or, if you want to round the answer, 9 percent. Either way, it's not a "double-digit" win. It's a single-digit win.
Given that Obama came into the Pennsylvania race with polls showing Clinton ahead by a whopping 20 percent, getting that margin down below 10 percent has to be rated a pretty impressive accomplishment. Add in the viciousness of the Clinton campaign's attacks on Obama, which played deliberately and shamelessly to the racial fears of her aging white, Catholic, working-class, less-educated female base, and it looks even more impressive.
That said, I think Obama ran a poor campaign in Pennsylvania. He relied heavily on television advertising, which has a diminishing impact the more that is spent (doubling a small number of ads can have a big impact, but doubling a large number won't accomplish much). He spent most of his time campaigning in Clinton strongholds, trying to lure Clinton voters away, and precious little time in his own strongholds--especially in Philadelphia's large black communities, which not surprisingly failed to turn out in the record numbers that his campaign needed, and which his historic candidacy should have logically gotten.
In part, Obama is hemmed in by his own national strategy: He is not running as a "black" candidate, and there is certainly the danger that if he got down into the streets and worked to generate real excitement in the projects and slums of cities like Philadelphia or Wilkes-Barre, he would simultaneously stoke the racist fears of white voters. But if he wants to win the nomination, and go on to win in November, he will clearly have to take that risk. (And it is considerable: Exit polls in Pennsylvania showed Obama losing by five percent, which means many people actually voted against him but didn't want to admit it to pollsters, suggesting that many didn't want to confess to casting an anti-black vote. Governor Ed Rendell, a Clinton backer, also famously noted that there are many people in Pennsylvania who "simply won't vote" for a black candidate.)
Obama has the same problem in confronting the Clinton attack machine. In the Philadelphia debate, where he was assailed from three sides, by Clinton, and by the two ABC "moderators," Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, Obama tried to avoid returning the same kind of cheap-shot fire. In his six-week campaign in Philadelphia, too, he was far less willing to, and ultimately late in his counter-attack against Clinton's red-baiting, race-baiting and other assaults, trying to offer what he calls a "new" kind of politics.
Again, it's clear that this "above the fray" kind of campaign strategy is not going to work--especially going forward. Americans say they want positive, issue-oriented campaigns, but they really want blood on the floor. Clinton is delivering that blood. Obama is going to have to do the same.
Finally, if he wants to win those white, working-class voters, and the women voters who are backing Clinton, Obama needs to do more than talk about Hope and Change. He needs to start talking concretely about fighting for women’s equality (he has two daughters—the case is easy!), he needs to talk concretely about ending not just the Iraq War, but the nation’s obsession with military spending, he needs to talk seriously about the crisis of global warming (not just creating green-energy jobs!), he needs to talk seriously about protecting American jobs, and he needs to talk seriously about how to break the insurance industry’s grip on the health care dollar.
In short, he needs a much more aggressive and focused campaign.
He should start by questioning her "fuzzy" math in claiming a double-digit win in Pennsylvania. _________________ DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006, and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
"Americans say they want positive, issue-oriented campaigns."
Sadly, many if not all of these same people whether they are aware of it are nowliving under the oppressive thumb of tyranny and fascism, and yet when it comes down to their elections they'll settle for blood on the floor? But Impeachment's off of the table, Mable. Go figure!
Perhaps instead of "supa delegates" we have pitch forks and "blood in the streets?" Maybe this would help put an end to the total depravity plaguing what is left of our America!
by
Munich (0 articles, 45 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 641 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 11:26:55 AM
It was reasonably expected that Hillary would win PA by 5-7 points. A tweaking of the voting machines would give her a boost to call it a double digit victory and keep her in the race to satisfy GOP wet dreams. This has all the earmarks of a programmed result. Factor in Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos to get GOPers to switch parties to ensure Hillary is the Dem nominee, and you have the recipe for President John McCain being sworn in to office in January, 2009. HAVA = Help Anesthetize Voting Americans
by
Paul Jacobs (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 2:05:43 PM
Though I admit I was impressed by Obama's dignified refusal
to get down in the mud with Hillary, it's something else again when Lindorff urges him towards such noble aims as
"he needs to talk concretely about ending not just the Iraq War, but the nation’s obsession with military spending, he needs to talk seriously about the crisis of global warming ..., he needs to talk seriously about protecting American jobs, and he needs to talk seriously about how to break the insurance industry’s grip on the health care dollar..."
These are things no Democrat can do, because all of them require taking a courageous stand against corporate power & privilege. No Democrat does this; the few that made any effort in that direction were either banned outright from the debates (Kucinich & Gravel) or forced out of the race (Edwards).
It would be great to see Obama taking these positions -- but it's not going to happen, any more than impeachment is going to happen. If Obama tried to do it, the media response would make ABC's treatment of him last week look mild by comparison.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1015 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 6:12:43 PM
My hope is that Obama will put her in her place as authoritatively as Michael Douglas did in "An American President" when he slammed the candidate who had been mercilessly sliming him.
OpEd carried a "Letter from Michael Moore" yesterday that says that when the Clinton's were having problems over Monica, one of the counselors they brought in was none other than Rev. Wright! The article claimed that Obama was being too nice a guy not to mention that. I think that Obama does have to come back hard but not overly hard. It has to be done with all the finesse and dignity in the world. She is fighting with her female claws bared, fair enough...good practice. I think he can handle her and McCain.
He's been giving her enough rope to hang herself. I hope that is his finesse play, but if it doesn't play into his hands soon I fear that the public will develop a blood lust which ends calling for a bloody fight between Hillary and McCain. The violent, emotional excitement of "Big Time Wrestling" is surprisingly popular throughout the nation. I worry that the public might rather see a bloody Hillary and McCain matchup purely for adrenaline pumping entertainment. Hopefully 'Bama isn't too nice, too "intellectual", and too squeaky clean in his white shirt. Jimmy Stewart, Gregory Peck, Cary Grant and Sidney Poitier could've dealt with this situation with authority, dignity and grace, I hope Barack can. Only by doing so will he win, because then Hillary can rise to the occasion and retire gracefully having given it "a good fight". If he makes an enemy of her he will alienate her supporters.
by
GeoRip (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 1:19:27 AM
