Jesseract

It’s interesting to me how the people who favor Clinton manage to turn a discussion around and find a way to make Obama look like the one who can’t “seal the deal.” This has been aggravating me for a while, but my simmering disgruntlement came to a boil after the Pennsylvania primary.

I’ve been planning a post about those questions, but before I could get to it,  Poliscope made a brilliant post this weekend that not only asked many of the questions that have been bugging me, but came up with more besides.

So, as I mentioned a few days ago, the establishment press has offered the following questions and/or observations on the outcome of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. . . . and the self-delusion is just astonishing.

1. What is Barack Obama’s problem with the “white working-class?” Why can’t he close the deal?

I would phrase the questions somewhat differently

1a. Why won’t “white working-class” voters support a black candidate whose views on the economy are more or less interchangeable with Hillary Clinton? What accounts for this 48 point gap in this demographic’s support for Clinton? If Hillary Clinton were running against, say, a white candidate with Obama’s views, would the gap be 48 percent?

1b. Why couldn’t Hillary close the deal back in February?

Don’t forget . . . this is a candidate who enjoyed an overwhelming financial advantage over all her competitors before the primary season started. Hillary also had the advantage in endorsements, campaign machinery and name-recognition. Once voters went to the polls, they voted for Obama over Clinton by consistently healthy amounts. Obama is the underdog in this race, not Hillary. But you wouldn’t know it from the coverage.

1c. Why won’t African-American voters support Hillary Clinton? Why won’t people most like Hillary Clinton — white, affluent and well-educated professionals — vote for her?

Go take a look at the county-by-county returns for all these “critical” states in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. You’ll find that Obama is winning in blue counties and Hillary is finding votes in red counties. In other words, the Democratic base is voting for Obama in disproportionately high numbers and conservative, sometimes Republican, voters are voting for Hillary. Why?

His response to 1B is particularly enlightening. I read two national newspapers, several D.C.-based political sites and who knows how many blogs, and I had to actually think about that. Obama is the underdog? No, no, that’s not right! But Ivers has a point. What happened to the people who clamored about the “inevitability of Hillary“? Now the Huffington Post is saying DNC officials are considering offering Clinton a “consolation prize” of governorship of New York. That’s a pretty spectacular reversal.

Another excellent point is that conservatives are voting for Hillary. We’ve all heard that Rush Limbaugh has said he’ll campaign for Hillary should she win the nomination-because she’ll bring together the Republican party. For god’s sake, Ann Coulter said she’d campaign for Hillary should McCain win the nomination, and McCain has practically turned into Bush Jr. on the campaign trail.

There comes a point when you have to look beyond your own petty politics and examine the motives behind other people’s petty politics. Why do Limbaugh (who recently said he was “dreaming of riots” in Denver at the Democratic National Convention) and Coulter (who has said so many batshit things I couldn’t possibly choose just one) supporting Hillary? The running narrative is that they think she’s so divisive that whoever runs against her on the Republican ticket can’t help but win, but it might be worthwhile to attempt to look at her from their perspective. Maybe they see someone who flip-flopped on the war, who has a reputation (whether deserved or not) for being ruthless - who might, in other words, play just as dirty as they’ve been playing for the last eight years.