Pennsylvania Primaries

On Tuesday, we will finally see the next of the Democratic and Republican primaries (although I think we can all safely say that McCain will receive the Republican endorsement). So I guess that a lot of people are asking what is expected to occur in this primary and what each scenario would mean for Obama or Clinton. The general consensus seems to be that Clinton is in the lead with a small margin. Clinton also seems to be in the lead in Catholic/Irish and blue collar areas, while Obama is more popular around Philadelphia and other larger cities. From what I’ve seen, it seems pretty unlikely that Obama will walk away with an actual win from this primary, but he could stop Clinton from taking the whole state. CNN commented (in the video linked above) that what Clinton really needs is to obtain about 54% of the votes to Obama’s 44% (or more) in order to gain more momentum. These are the results of the primaries in neighboring Ohio and New Jersey. Anything less than this sort of victory might cause a loss in momentum. So this scenario seems to be the actual goal of the Obama campaign.

Fighting in Pennsylvania

Unfortunately, it seems that we are once again seeing the Democratic presidential candidates battle it out. While we seem to have had some sort of relative lull recently, the Pennsylvania primaries have rekindled the debates. The change was apparent when the candidates went from saying that their respective opponent could beat McCain in a general election to apparently now saying that the other couldn’t win in the general election. But that’s just one small example of the fighting going on. Essentially the real problem is the fact that neither Obama nor Clinton seems to be able to go one day without verbally attacking the other.
Now, maybe this is very naive of me, but I was honestly hoping that we might have a cleaner run for the presidential candidate this year. Instead, it seems like McCain is just having some sort of relaxing nap while the Democratic candidates tear each other to pieces. I just find this strange because it seems like both candidates have similar ideas, at least for the most part. And when these primaries and caucuses first began, there were many people who found that they liked more than one of the candidates. But now we have negative ads coming through the mail and showing up on the T.V. and it seems like half of the debate time is eaten up by issues that really don’t matter (read: Obama’s old pastor and Clinton’s Bosnia incident). Granted, this has been happening for a while now, but why? Both of the candidates know that the longer this goes on, the worse things are going to be when one of them is running for president.
I guess the part that really concerns me is the large possibility that neither of the candidates will be able to have the minimum of 2,025 delegates needed to win. I mean, if this is the fighting we must put up with at a big primary, just think of the convention. I have a feeling that the unity they’re hoping for after convention will be elusive.

"Bitter"

We have yet another presidential tiff after Obama’s comments about small town citizens being “bitter” about their lack of financial help from the government which leads them to “cling to guns and religion.” Clinton and McCain speedily and happily proclaimed him an “elitist” and now new debate over the second amendment has emerged.
So the real issue behind all this is that the American people want someone like them in the presidency. First of all, this is rather contradictory as one must have significant funds in order to run for president in the first place. For example, both Clinton and McCain’s families are both worth about $100 million. Nevertheless, this hasn’t stopped Clinton from trying to relate to small town people by telling old hunting stories from her childhood. Whether or not these stories had the intended effect depends on who you talked to. However, I find it odd that presidential candidates feel that they are relating to the middle class by telling stories of hunting or drinking shots (like Clinton). I mean, honestly, maybe I’m off the track but those don’t seem to be our only pastimes. It makes it seem more like they’re taking a time to just condescend to our level. Like we’re too simple for anything else.

Dividing the Democratic Party

Apparently former Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd has announced that the Democratic Party should declare a candidate before the caucuses finish. He also believes that this candidate should be Obama.

To some extent, I can agree with him. His reasoning is that the Democratic Party has become very divisive in the past couple of months and will only continue to worsen. I would definitely agree with this assumption (I believe my first post on this blog was centered on my irritation at the bickering between Obama and Clinton). I hope that the current relationship between Obama and Clinton won’t last the entire process of the caucuses, but I guess that no one really knows. I can only assume that things will become even more aggressive as the Democratic convention grows nearer in the same way that Clinton became more aggressive as Obama caught up to her lead. A poll by CNN showed as many as 16% of polled Democratic voters saying that they would not vote in the 2008 election if their chosen candidate isn’t picked (whether that candidate is Obama or Clinton). This is rather alarming for, although it probably has some errors and is only accurate as to people’s current beliefs, it seems to be a fairly accurate representation of how things stand. I mean, after all, how different are Obama and Clinton from each other? Yes, they obviously have some different ideas and their supporters would be quick to find them. But they’re both moderate Democrats who are going after similar ideals, just in slightly different ways. Is this enough to keep you at home? Is it really better to just pout and sulk in a corner?

At any rate, I do see Dodd’s point in his reasoning; this constant bickering has become destructive. However, I don’t think that the answer is to claim that Obama is obviously a shoe-in for the presidential candidate when the race is so close. I also do not agree with the idea that we should completely disregard the states that have yet to vote in a caucus and just pick. That is entirely against the caucus system and would most likely lead to an even more divided party than before.

"A More Perfect Union"

Although I missed the original speech by Obama on the 18th, I was luckily able to find a full version. I rarely actually say anything about the links I hyperlink to, but I have to stop and say that I highly recommend taking the time to watch this speech if you have not done so already.
Perhaps it is from the years of painfully watching President Bush give speeches and talk in an impromptu fashion, but every time Obama speaks I can hardly believe my eyes or ears. It isn’t full of embarrassing Bushisms (or Obama-isms, I suppose) and it isn’t awkward. It is the way one would always picture the American president to speak. It was sincere and touching.
The speech was in response to the media criticism of his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the following criticism of Obama (cough, Fox News, cough). However, the speech was not about him trying to necessarily apologize for the pastor, but to talk about the conditions of race in this country. After all, this is why the Reverend made these comments. This led to the most candid and eloquent speeches about race I’ve ever heard, especially in a country where it is taboo to discuss such things.
“This church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.”
I thought that this was one of the most effective words of the speech. I obviously have no idea what it is like to be African American but this helps me understand. That African Americans, especially of the pastor’s generation, want to make this country a more equal place, but they are also held back by the bitterness that has come from having to fight so much for their civil rights.
This, however, was my favorite quote of the entire speech and on this note I will leave you:
“For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." "