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.

Clinton Under Fire

Anyone who is vaguely familiar with the elections will know that Clinton's main point of attack against Obama is his experience, especially foreign experience. And now we find that she has been exaggerating a description used to describe her wealth of experience. For a brief summary, she had told an anecdote about her arrival in Bosnia during the Clinton administration in which they had to run as they were fired on. The media has apparently uncovered a videotape of their landing which shows them not to be rushed at all and that she actually stopped to talk to an eight year-old girl. She says she misspoke, but has used the story more than once.

So what do we make of this? Obviously it isn't a giant lie. Is this just another example of the media being tough on Clinton? Or is this another example of Clinton manipulating the general public? It is probably both to some degree. It is obvious that Clinton knew that she was stretching the truth and is now trying to feign ignorance in hopes that we'll just leave it alone. I personally don't think that it is such of a big deal, but it just adds to the general atmosphere of her administration. It's just politics as usual, which is disappointing.