http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the...s.php?page=all

The Late Great States
Demographics should temper claims of closing “momentum” By Clint Hendler
Tue 6 May 2008 09:53 PM

Remember Pennsylvania? It was to be the last mega-state, the primary of primaries that would cap off almost four months of contests. A victory there by Obama would certainly end the race. A victory by Clinton would allow her to soldier on.

Polls and many pundits pointed out that Pennsylvania was packed with people who didn’t fit Obama’s voter profile—the elderly, Catholics, etc.—and that the state, no matter where it fell on the primary calendar, would be rough sledding for the Illinois senator.

Then some funny things happened on the way to the voting booth. We had video of Jeremiah Wright; Mayhill Fowler; some whiskey shots and some bowling. Suddenly—and with ample prodding from the Clinton camp—Pennsylvania became a test state, where the superdelegates and the media sifted the entrails of exit polls and wondered why Obama couldn’t win white working-class voters.

But what if Pennsylvania had never happened? Would the same working-class test have come in late April? If it did, how would it have played across the differing demographics of Indiana and North Carolina, two weeks later?

It’s not an irrelevant question. On March 13, 2007—yes, that’s two-oh-oh-seven—Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell asked the legislature to move the state’s primary to February 5, which was already shaping up to be the 2008 Super Tuesday. For whatever reason—it was a busy legislative season, and there was some debate about the best earlier date—Pennsylvania stuck with late April.

Had it moved to February 5, the contest would have blended in with the twenty-three other Democratic contests held that day.

The point is that the narrative of the primary season is based on the pegs provided by the voting. And the Democrats’ nomination calendar is almost the definition of arbitrary, especially once it lurched past Super Tuesday.

Clinton’s closing case to the superdelegates rests on some shaky pillars. Among them is that she’d be the stronger general-election candidate (polls are at best inconclusive), that she’s likely to win more of the popular vote (depends a lot on how you count).

So Clinton will urge the superdelegates and the press handicappers to concentrate on Pennsylvania and, coming up, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. But again, what makes those states likely Clinton states? It’s not that they came in the wake of the Reverend Wright tempest, or the economic skid, or BitterGate. It’s that the demographics of those states, which didn’t change a bit through the campaign’s ebb and flow, favor Clinton. Period. And it’s mere happenstance that they are among the few states left to vote.

Look back to early February, when Obama, as expected, strung together a ten-contest sweep, and Clinton was on the ropes. The press gushed at Obama’s “momentum.” Clinton’s campaign hung on, even though the delegate math was fixed. She knew there was favorable turf yet to come, and hoped to deploy another argument: that the coming late victories might be used to convince the superdelegates that she was better situated to beat John McCain. She’d like to do the same now.

Demography is not always destiny. (That’s why we still have elections.) But as the press and the commentariat inch forward from Indiana and North Carolina, we hope that they remember—and remind their readers and viewers—that any “momentum” harnessed from these late contests deserves a heavy footnote.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...431/619/510942

As for the vice presidency, that one should be a non-starter from the start. This isn't a call based on bitterness or hate, but practical politics. The VP candidate needs to be a subservient figure, someone who won't outshine or overshadow the presidential candidate. Let's face it, Hillary is too strong a personality to play that role (not anymore), and the drama the Clinton family carries with them would be a distraction from Obama's core message. Seeing how Bill Clinton has comported himself this primary season, no one wants to see him around the rest of the year. He's been a disgrace.

Furthermore, at a time that the GOP is fractured, demoralized and broke, few figures can bring in the dough than the Clintons. There's no reason to give Republicans a boost by putting Clinton on the ticket.

What about her positives? She doesn't deliver geography (few vice presidents do, remember Edwards), she doesn't add "experience" to the ticket, since she always overplayed her credentials on that front, she probably brings some credibility on health care, but little else. There's the "unify the party" thing, but that's overplayed as well. In 2000, McCain supporters claimed they wouldn't support Bush, and they did. And in 2008, McCain's enemies (and he has many in his party) claimed they'd never support him, and yet now they do. Few in our party want 100 years of war, the end of Roe v Wade, and the continuation of the Bush/Cheney agenda.

And then there's demographics. Obama does far better with independents than Clinton ever did, and let's not kid ourselves that she can deliver working class white males to the party during the general election any more effectively than John Edwards did in 2004, or than Obama can do on his own. She does have cred with Latino voters and obviously is beloved by women, especially those who lived through the women's movement in the 60s and 70s. For them, a female president would be a culmination of everything they ever fought for. Ebony had that wonderful magazine cover with Obama and the headline, "In our lifetimes". It's inspiring for African Americans as Clinton's chances were for women.

In that regard, Obama has two strong choices -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. While I said above that vice presidential candidates don't bring geography with them, Richardson actually would deliver New Mexico since it's probably the most evenly matched state in the union. Bush beat Kerry by less than a percentage point in 2004, or 7,000 votes. And Richardson's strong cred in the Latino community would improve Obama's chances in Texas, Nevada, and Colorado. In fact, I'd camp him out in those states. Furthermore, his foreign policy credibility is unparalleled in Democratic politics, bolstering one of Obama's perceived weaknesses.

It would be tough for Sebelius to deliver Kansas, but she has a proven record of winning moderate and Republican votes without abandoning core progressive principles. She's a former head of the Democratic Governor's Association (as is Richardson), so has strong ties to many of the nation's Democratic governors who will play a large role in delivering the ticket to the Democrats. She has successful executive experience, and was named by Time in 2005 as one of the nation's five best governors for balancing the states crushing $1.1 billion budget deficit without raising taxes or cutting funding for education. She has convinced a large number of her state's Republicans to switch parties. Her (Democratic) Lt. Gov is a former chair of the Kansas Republican Party. She is the kind of "reach out" politician that Obama wants to be, and would be a fantastic choice for him.