The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com: Stories by Jeremy P. Jacobs

The $9 Million Question

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:09:01 GMT

As the results of the Pennsylvania primary start trickling in tonight, keep an eye on how often the commentators bring up Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) $9 million spent on television advertising in the Keystone State. As Chuck Todd reported this morning on MSNBC's First Read, Obama will have some explaining to do if the $9 million doesn't close the gap on Clinton, who only spent about $3 million on TV.

Of course, Obama's TV spending spree won't matter if he ends up closing the gap at the end of the night. But if things look ugly for Obama early on, which they might because, as Todd also notes, Philadelphia's results may come in slowly, the constant reminder of Obama's $9 million could make a bad loss for him look even worse.

First Exit Polls...

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:31:00 GMT

CNN's Bill Schneider just released the first exit poll numbers coming out of Pennsylvania. The economy and Iraq are again the two most important issues on voters' minds. Of those that say the economy is the most important issue, 56 percent voted for Clinton, while 43 percent voted for Obama. Of voters that said Iraq is the most important issue facing the country, 57 percent voted for Obama, 43 percent for Clinton.

Both are holding their bases. Clinton is again winning older voters, with 61 percent of those over 65 voting for her (Obama got 38 percent).

Obama is again winning big among voters that registered in the last year (60 percent) and African Americans (92 percent). One in seven voters registered within the last year, indicating what may be another large turnout.

Of voters that made up their mind on who to vote for in the last week (read: since the controversial debate), 58 percent voted for Clinton, 42 percent voted for Obama.

When asked who will get the Democratic nomination, 54 percent said Obama while 43 percent said Clinton. However, when asked which Democratic candidate would make you most satisfied, 38 percent said either, 32 percent said Clinton and 25 percent said Obama.

On the Economy:
42% say the country is in a serious recession
47% say the country is in a moderate recession
10% say the economy is just in a "slow down"

Which candidate would handle the economy better?
27% say Clinton
19% say Obama
45% say both (not sure what that means...)
6% say neither

Pennsylvania Recap: Is Dem Division Cementing?

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:49:55 GMT

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) picked up a critical 10-point win in Pennsylvania. While the campaign's spinmeisters try to do what they do best, one thing is clear: Clinton has lived to see another day.

As the deluge of exit polls came in last night, a few interesting results stood out. According to MSNBC, 71 percent of respondents would be satisfied if Clinton became the nominee, compared to 64 percent for Obama. Over 60 percent of Clinton backers said they wouldn't be happy with Obama as the nominee; Just over half of Obama's supporters wouldn't be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee.

Here's the kicker: Fifty-three percent of Clinton voters would vote for Obama if he were the Democratic nominee, while 25 percent would vote for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Eighteen percent wouldn't vote at all.

Of Obama supporters: Sixty-nine percent would vote for Clinton, 16 percent would go for McCain and 13 percent would stay home.

This could be simply the result of the long and entrenched campaigns in Pennsylvania, but one has to wonder whether the oft-discussed division among Democrats is cementing.

The AP reports that while Obama held his base of black, affluent and young voters, he didn't make any inroads into Clinton's base of white, blue-collar voters (Clinton won them 69 percent to 30 percent). This result, perhaps more than anything else, helps Clinton's argument to superdelegates that Obama is not electable. Clinton also retained her base of older voters, women and whites.

Clinton is off to Indiana and North Carolina Thursday, turning her attention to their May 6 primaries. The big question is whether this helps Clinton in fund raising. Already her campaign is saying the Pennsylvania win has brought in $2.5 million.

Obama was already in Indiana last night. He delivered his election night speech from Evansville.

Wolfson Reacts to NYT Editorial

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:42:17 GMT

On MSNBC this morning, Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson blasted this scathing editorial in the New York Times that calls for Clinton to get out of the race. "It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election," the editorial reads.

"That description of the race is not one that I'm familiar with having lived it," Wolfson said.

Wolfson went on to reference this article in today's Washington Post by Jonathan Weisman that reads:

Unable once again to score a knockout, Sen. Barack Obama is likely to make his new negative tone even more negative -- with a sharp eye on trying to end the Democratic presidential nomination fight after the May 6 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.

Weisman goes on:

...the candidate who rocketed to stardom as the embodiment of a new kind of politics -- hopeful, positive and inspiring -- saw his image tarnished in the bruising fight for Pennsylvania. Provoked by Clinton's repeated references to his remarks about the state's voters and her charges that he is an 'elitist,' Obama struck back in the closing days of the campaign.

The Times editorial pulls no punches going after Clinton:

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.

The irony, of course, is that on Jan. 25 this same New York Times editorial board "strongly" recommended its readers back Clinton. How quickly things change...

Looking Ahead...

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:15:00 GMT

As the dust settles following the Pennsylvania primary, the candidates and the media have turned to what comes next. It feels like it was years ago that everyone was talking about how Texas, Ohio and then Pennsylvania would be Sen. Hillary Clinton's firewalls, preventing Sen. Barack Obama from riding a surge of momentum to the Democratic nomination. Now that that's all behind us, North Carolina, it appears, will be Obama's firewall.

According to Real Clear Politics poll average, Obama leads Clinton by 15 and a half points in the Tar Hell state (51.3 percent to 35.8 percent). The state is over 22 percent African American, according to the 2000 census, which is good news for Obama. Since it is the country's tenth most populace state with around 9 million residents, it could help Obama dispel the Clinton charge that he can't win a big state.

Unlike in South Carolina where she could afford to lose, Clinton can't ignore North Carolina and blame a bad loss on the black vote carrying Obama to victory. If Obama does win big in the Tar Heel state, Clinton can't keep pushing the "Tide is Turning" message (her campaign has distributed four press releases under that title since election night in Pennsylvania). Clinton has to prove that Obama is a fundamentally flawed candidate that can't win in the general. The only way to do that is to beat him (or at least come close to beating him) in a state she has no business competing with him in. Moreover, a big Obama win would wipe out the bump in the popular vote Clinton earned in Pennsylvania - another crucial point in her momentum argument.

It looks like Clinton is marching down the only path available: Going for broke. I know the expectations game is risky, but if Obama wins by five points or less on May 6 in North Carolina, the Clinton camp could still declare victory. This will be particularly difficult for Clinton to do for three reasons. First, Clinton's unfavorability rating is too high for her to make the jumps in the polls that Obama did in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvanians didn't know Obama, North Carolinians already have an opinion of Clinton. Second, Clinton has to win Indiana on the same day, which is no easy task. According to the same averages, Clinton leads by just 2.2 points in Hoosier state. She'll have to hold that lead or expand it while gaining on Obama in North Carolina. And last, even though she has raised $10 million dollars since Pennsylvania, she is still at a striking financial disadvantage to Obama. This will make it difficult for her to fight a two-front war.

Oh No, Not Another Debate

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:28:00 GMT

The Washington Post's Perry Bacon Jr. reports today that, unsurprisingly, Sen. Hillary Clinton is putting everything on the line to win North Carolina's May 6 primary, or at least make it a close race. One of Clinton's tactics is ratcheting up the pressure on Sen. Barack Obama to participate in what would be the Democrats' 22nd debate. Bacon writes:

[Clinton] repeated her challenge to Obama to debate her in this state, after the senator from Illinois would not commit to a previously scheduled one. 'I've said I will debate anytime, anywhere,' Clinton told a crowd of several hundred in Fayetteville [N.C.]. 'I think you deserve your own debate.'

Obama has yet to agree to another official spar with Clinton in North Carolina. Previous plans for a CBS debate in the Tar Heel state were scrapped earlier this week. Maybe if Clinton guaranteed Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos would be no where near the debate, Obama would be more amenable to participating.

Obama's Wright Problem Persists

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:22:27 GMT

UPDATE: When this piece was posted, we reported that McCain strategist Charlie Black said the North Carolina Republican party would not air the controversial Jeremiah Wright television advertisements. The North Carolina GOP confirmed the ads would not air. Since the story was posted, the North Carolina GOP said it will, in fact, run the ads Monday. Time magazine does a good job summing up the confusion here.

When the videos of Sen. Barack Obama's longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., surfaced a few weeks ago, Rabbi Barry Gelman immediately heard feedback from his congregation, the United Orthodox Synagogues of Houston, Tex. As the clips of Wright proclaiming “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” following the 9/11 attacks and calling Israel a “dirty” word were repeatedly broadcast and analyzed by pundits on the cable news networks, the rabbi sensed an unease within the congregation, which Gelman describes as politically active and “very patriotic.”

The following week, when Obama made his speech on race in America, Gelman, who is undecided, thought Obama would allay these concerns. But, as far as Gelman is concerned, he didn’t.

“For lots of Jewish people,” Gelman said, “this whole thing has given them cause for pause. It is causing people to think twice.”

Obama’s relationship with Wright has raised questions about whether Obama can count on the Jewish vote should he become the Democratic nominee. A host of earlier issues had already raised doubts about the Illinois senator for many Jewish voters. They took note that Obama expressed a willingness to meet with leaders of Iran without preconditions -- though these leaders have called for the destruction of Israel; that he expressed sympathy for Palestinians; that his foreign-policy advisers include former Carter National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Clinton National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, as well as other experts perceived as pro-Palestinian. Obama's long association with Wright seemed to validate all these earlier suspicions, and demonstrate to some Jews -- and several leading political pundits -- that Obama isn't fully pro-Israel.

But that doesn't tell the whole story. While these conservative Jewish groups have relentlessly criticized Obama and pointed to his poll numbers leveling off after the Wright controversy as evidence of Obama's electability problems with Jewish voters, there is little evidence that Jews have fled Obama in the Pennsylvania primary. These conservative groups could still play a significant role in the general election, influencing Jewish voters in swing states like Florida, Michigan and Ohio should Obama be the nominee. They undoubtedly will try to do this. But political experts agree that they represent a very small percentage of Jews. Most Jewish voters, they say, would remain a part of Obama's well-educated, affluent and liberal base.

"From what I've seen, Jews have reacted to the Wright controversy similarly as other groups of white voters," said Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University. "The idea that Obama has a problem with support from Jews hasn't been supported."

But Wright could well create more problems for Obama on the campaign trail. On Wednesday, the North Carolina Republic Party previewed a television advertisement that it planned to start airing next Monday, featuring a picture of Obama with his arm around Wright and playing the clip of Wright saying "God Damn America" in one of his speeches. Media coverage of the preview was intense. The North Carolina GOP has since said it won't run the ad.

Wright is also scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the NAACP annual Fight For Freedom Fund dinner on Sunday, two days after PBS' "Bill Moyers Journal" is running an hour-long segment about the preacher. On Monday, Wright is scheduled to address the National Press Club in Washington.

Obama is so new to the national stage, that many Jewish voters were introduced to him when they learned these facts about him. He has also emerged just as the longtime Jewish-black coalition seems particularly frayed. And since the Wright controversy broke, Republican Jewish groups have criticized Obama relentlessly -- keeping their concerns at the forefront of media coverage.

For lots of Jewish people, Gelman said, this whole thing has given them cause for pause. It is causing people to think twice. “It would seem like it’s a reasonable expectation that if he had disagreed with his pastor, he would have canceled his membership in the church,” said Suzanne Kurtz, spokeswoman for the Republican Jewish Coalition, or RJC. The group has issued more than a dozen press releases criticizing Obama since the beginning of his campaign.

Other conservative Jewish groups are more strident in their criticism. “Rev. Wright is an enemy of Jews and an enemy of the United States,” said Shelley Rubin, the head of the controversial Jewish Defense League, the extremist right organization dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism. “It is clear that Wright is a far left-wing hate-monger. Obama’s 20-year relationship with Wright, as well as his failure to unequivocally repudiate Wright, should serve as sufficient proof to even the most incredulous individuals that Obama at least tacitly accepted his spiritual leader until they became an open liability.”

Obama's stagnant poll numbers following the initial broadcast of Wright's remarks led some political analysts to believe that the doubts raised by these Jewish groups had gained traction. In the beginning of March, leading up to when Wright's comments received wide public attention, Obama was making large gains in Gallup's national tracking poll. On Mar. 13, Obama was ahead, 50 percent to 44 percent.

After Wright's comments were broadcast, Obama saw his numbers drop to 42 percent in Gallup's Mar. 18 poll. Then, after Obama delivered his Mar. 18 speech on race, his numbers again climbed. He was up to 52 percent on Mar. 29, only to see the numbers level off. He has not been able to open a larger lead than 10 points in the tracking poll since.

While Jews make up only 3 percent of the population, these outspoken conservative groups could be influential in the general election, said Alan Wolfe, a political science professor and director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, conservative Jews could seek to influence the Jewish population in Detroit, Cleveland and Miami -- important cities in swing states. They could also target the conservative Jews who supported Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he earned 39 percent of the Jewish vote and, to a lesser extent, George W. Bush in 2004, when he earned 19 percent.

"I'm sure there are people out there would really like to see McCain get up to the same number of Jewish votes that Reagan did," Wolfe said. "If you're a very conservative Jew and you want to see McCain elected, you might even support Obama in the primary because it would be easier to split the Jewish vote from him in the general election."

Obama has recognized this problem and his campaign has sought to allay these criticisms. On April 16, Obama took questions at a Jewish community meeting at Congregation Rodeph Shalom, a Reform synagogue in Philadelphia. He delivered prepared remarks from the synagogue's bima, the raised lectern in front of the ark where the Torah is kept. He then fielded questions from the congregation. When asked about former President Jimmy Carter’s decision to meet with the Hamas leaders, Obama immediately responded, “Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization.”

He also explained his willingness to meet with the leaders of Iran. Obama said it is "a practical assessment in terms of how we can best achieve our ultimate goal -- which is a an Iran that is not threatening its neighbors, is not threatening Israel, does not possess nuclear weapons, is not funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas." He later added, "I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and what I've also said is that I will leave all military options on the table."

"Nobody has been able to identify any set of comments that I've made or set of positions that I've taken that's contrary to the Jewish community or Israel," he said in his closing remarks.

Fortunately for Obama, most political scientists agree that this group of outspoken conservative Jews represents a very small percentage of the Jewish vote. There are two types of Jewish voters, said Kenneth Baer, a Democratic strategic who studies the Jewish vote, and is neutral in this campaign. For the first type, religion plays a large role in determining who they vote, so where a candidate stands on Israel is critical to these voters. This group, which includes Rubin and Kurz's organizations, tend to more be observant, though not necessarily Orthodox, and attend synagogue more regularly. They are also often involved in Jewish community organizations.

Abramowitz estimated that while 20 to 25 percent of Jew vote Republican, this group, which tends to be the most politically active, is relatively small. Their fervor has been influential in shaping media coverage, though. “The media’s perceptions are often shaped by the most vocal members of the Jewish community, which tend to be the most conservative and are disproportionately concerned about Israel," he said.

The other group of Jewish voters, which tends to be far larger, is more in line with Obama ideologically on social issues and the Iraq War. There is no evidence to suggest that they have shifted their support away from him in light of Wright's comments or that they will as Wright continues to be covered in the media. "Jews are still overwhelmingly liberal," Wolfe said, "even when there is a pro-Isreal president like Bush."

"Jews tend to be much more liberal than the overall electorate," said Abramowitz, "particularly on social issues. Jews are also more opposed to the war in the Iraq than the American people."

These Jews make up part of the well-educated, affluent voters often dubbed "Chardonnay Democrats." As polling has shown, they are a significant part of Obama's base. Obama, who was ranked the most liberal member of the Senate by National Journal, naturally appeals to these voters more than the smaller pool of conservative Jewish groups that have been criticizing him.

Recent polling among Jewish Democrats has shown these voters aren't fleeing from Obama. A Gallup tracking poll conducted from Mar.1-22, the period when Wright’s remarks become public, revealed that Jewish Democratic voters preferred Clinton to Obama by only 5 percentage points, 48 to 43. This was less of a difference than among Catholics, who favored Clinton 56 percent to 37 percent. Among Christian non-Catholics, Obama edged Clinton, by 47 percent to 44 percent.

Moreover, past presidential elections have shown that these conservative groups are outside the mainstream Jewish voters, who have largely supported Democrats. Jewish voters backed Al Gore over George W. Bush 79 percent to 19 percent in 2000; in 2004, Jewish voters supported John Kerry over Bush 75 percent to 25 percent.

Abramowitz said he doubts McCain will make inroads into the Jewish vote if Obama is the nominee. Jews have been willing to vote for moderate to liberal Republicans but there aren't very many of those left," Abramowitz said. "At times McCain has been considered a moderate but from looking at his positions on Iraq and the social issues he is pretty conservative."

Correction: An earlier version of this story reported that Jeremiah Wright was speaking before the NAACP and appearing on PBS' "Bill Moyers Journal" on the same day. Wright spoke before the NAACP on Sunday. He appeared on PBS on Friday. We regret the error.

Chicago Jews on Wright, Obama

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:35:32 GMT

As I noted in my story today, Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright has raised the ire of many conservative Jewish groups, including the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Jewish Defense League. Their argument will likely get a jump start later today, when Wright begins an all out media blitz on the "Bill Moyers Journal" tonight, a speech at the NAACP annual dinner and another at the National Press Club Monday.

As these groups continue to contend that Wright (and Obama by association) is anti-Semitic and/or anti-Israel, a couple recent conversations I had with leaders of the Chicago Jewish community painted a far different picture.

While Melanie Maron was working as the associate director of the American Jewish Committee's (AJC) Chicago chapter, she took international delegations to Wright's Trinity Church. "We would call and make it very clear we were from AJC and that we had a large delegation," Maron, who is now the executive director of the AJC Washington D.C. chapter and spoke only for her personal experiences and not for AJC. "We were always very warmly welcomed. There was never any hesitation and they were happy to have us. We were even acknowledged by Reverand Wright from the lectern."

On one occasion, Wright met with the Maron and a German delegation for 30 minutes before the service. Wright, who speaks German, laid out the history of the black church in America and took questions. In the service, "Wright announced that we were there and the choir sang a song in German," Maron said. "It was a powerful and warm welcoming experience."

"My experience with Trinity and Rev. Wright personally was always very positive," added Maron.

When Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, he worked during the summers at Judson Miner's firm, Miner, Barnhill and Galland. During that time, Miner, who is Jewish, became very close with Obama. "I have never seen a hint that he has had any issues with the Jewish community," Miner said. "He is an incredibly fair person. I have known of no prejudice of any sort."

"As long as I have known Barack," Miner said, "he has counted Jews among his friends - people he socialized closely with and were naturally his supporters."

Axelrod Testy Over Wright Comments

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:19:11 GMT

As MSNBC was waiting to broadcast Rev. Jeremiah Wright's remarks at the National Press Club in Washington this morning, things got a bit testy between the show's co-host Mika Brzezinski and Obama chief strategist David Axelrod. Axelrod repeatedly emphasized that Wright does not speak for Obama and refused to respond to Wright's recent media tour Wright spoke at an NAACP dinner last night and was the subject of an hour-long segment on PBS' "Bill Moyers Journal" Friday.

"I'm not going to comment Rev. Wright's motivations or the political implications of what he is doing, he doesn't speak for us," Axelrod added. "The question is back to you guys. Obviously you've given him a huge media platform. I was sort of surprised to see three hours of coverage last night on one of the cable networks." CNN was the network to which he referred.

Exasperated near the end of the segement, Axelrod asked, "How many times can you say I don't agree with him, some of the things he says are outrageous and he doesn't speak for me? How many times can you say that?"

Axelrod is right: The Obama camp has repeatedly said Wright doesn't speak for their candidate. But Axelrod, who is typically very good in these television phone-ins, was clearly peeved by the coverage of Wright's recent remarks. His testiness indicates that the campaign wasn't expecting the Wright problem to linger as long as it has. They may finally be realizing that Obama's problem with Wright isn't going away and they need to have better answers to these questions about Obama and Wright's relationship. At the time this was posted, the Obama campaign hasn't responded to Wright's remarks this morning.

Obama Picks Up Bingaman

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:52:29 GMT

New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman endorsed Sen. Barack Obama today, bringing Obama's superdelegate count to 242 to Clinton's 264. (289 are still uncommitted.) Bingaman has served in the Senate for 26 years and is the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

In the release, Bingaman said:

To make progress, we must rise above the partisanship and the issues that divide us to find common ground. We must move the country in a dramatically new direction.

I strongly believe Barack Obama is best positioned to lead the nation in that new direction.

Since Clinton's win in Pennsylvania last week, five superdelegates have announced their support for Obama compared to two for Clinton. According to MSNBC's tally, Obama now leads 15 to 12 among senators.

Could this be the Obama's camp's way of trying to slow down the Wright-heavy media cycle? Bingaman is a well respected member of the Democratic Senate caucus, and is one of the most high profile endorsements Obama has received in a while.

Update: Earlier we reported that there was no press release from the Obama camp. There was. We regret the error.

Clinton Strikes Back With Easley

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:44:50 GMT

North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton this morning. This brings the the superdelegate tally to 265 for Clinton and 242 for Obama, by MSNBC's count. (288 supers are uncommitted).

Per the release:

I am supporting Hillary Clinton because she has a passion for improving the lives of all Americans. She will be a president who stands up for people across North Carolina – and this country – every day in the White House,' said Governor Easley. 'I know she will get to work immediately making education and the economy her top priorities for our nation. She is ready to lead our country and has the ability to deliver.'

Easley, a two-term governor, is a big get for Clinton - only one other N.C. superdelegate has gone for Clinton so far. It also all but nullifies Obama's picking up Sen. Jeff Bingaman yesterday, which has gotten little attention in the press in wake of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's media blitz. It should be noted, though, that both Democratic candidates for the upcoming gubernatorial race in North Carolina have endorsed Obama. Easley can't run again under North Carolina's term-limit rules. While the two candidates aren't superdelegates, their support reinforces the story line Obama's camp is pushing that he is more in line with the current Democratic mind set in the Tar Heel State.

Wright Fallout, Contd.

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:50:53 GMT

A day after all things Wright on the campaign trail, New York Times TV reporter Alessandra Stanley writes a bruising front-page review of Wright's performance at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. yesterday. Here are the highlights:

Viewers who had seen the Chicago preacher only in brief cable news clips or campaign attack ads finally saw the unexpurgated version, and it was an illuminating display.

Followers of Fox News may have been appalled by the sound bites, but so were members of Mr. Wright’s congregation, including Mr. Obama, who complained that the inflammatory snippets were reductive and unfair.

Now it turns out that Mr. Wright doesn’t hate America, he loves the sound of his own voice. He is not out of touch with the American culture, he is the avatar of the American celebrity principle: he grabbed his 30-second spots of infamy and turned them into 15 minutes of fame.

Stanley's interpretation raises an interesting question: Could Wright's recent remarks help Obama? Obama called an impromptu press conference on the tarmac at the Wilmington, N.C. airport Monday to reiterate that Wright "does not speak for me; he does not speak for the campaign." Maybe the more outlandish Wright appears, the easier it will be for voters to differentiate him from Obama. Then again, in order for that to work the media would have separate Wright from Obama, and that is certainly not what is happening right now.

Obama 'Unequivocally' Denounces Wright

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:30:06 GMT

In his strongest terms yet, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) rejected his pastor of 20 years at a press conference in North Carolina this afternoon. Obama called Rev. Jeremiah Wright's remarks at the National Press Club yesterday a "performance" that angered him.

"I want to make absolutely clear that I do not subscribe to the views that he suggests," Obama said. "I think they are wrong, I think they are destructive."

Obama referred to Wright's continued claims that Louis Farrakhan was one of the greatest voices of the 21st century, that the U.S. government was involved in the development of AIDS and equating U.S. military action with terrorism. Wright also suggested that Obama's recent denouncements were done solely for political reasons.

Those remarks "offend me," Obama said, "and they should be denounced and that is what I'm doing unequivocally today."

Wright's remarks, he added, "do not portray acccurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly do not portray accurately my values and beliefs. If Rev. Wright thinks that's political posturing than he does not know me very well and based on what I saw yesterday, I may not know him very well."

Obama's remarks are clearly his attempt to end the current media cycle that has tied him to Wright. Obama appeared angered at his former pastor and this is his way of disassociating himself from a man whose comments he said "shocked" him. Obviously, there will significant coverage of this presser, but it will be interesting to see if the furor about Wright settles down in a day or two. It will also be interesting to see if Wright responds to these remarks. Wright's ego was clearly bruised when Obama distanced himself from him - and this won't help that.

Superdelegate Chimes in on Wright

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:50:20 GMT

In the New York Times write up of Obama's denouncing of Rev. Jeremiah Wright yesterday, a telling quote from an uncommitted superdelegate surfaces in the second half of the story:

Bob Mulholland, a superdelegate from California, said the difficulties Mr. Obama had experienced put a premium on results in the remaining contests.

'We’ve got nine elections to go through June 9,' Mr. Mulholland said in an interview. 'I’ve never been involved in a successful presidential race where the candidate had no trouble in the primary. It’s challenging to him. He is a young man, and this is the first time he’s run for president. I see this as a learning experience.'

Asked how he thought Mr. Obama was doing, Mr. Mulholland paused before responding. 'Getting better,' he finally said.

While these remarks are certainly encouraging for Obama, they illustrate that the Wright controversy is weighing on the minds of uncommitted superdelegates. They also show that Mulholland doesn't see the nomination being wrapped up anytime soon, bad news for the Obama camp.

Ok, Maybe Superdelegates Aren't Worried About Wright

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:10:00 GMT

Just when I thought the Wright controversy was affecting superdelegates thoughts on Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), I find out that Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) plans to endorse Obama today.

By MSNBC's tally, Obama now has 245 superdelegates and Clinton has 266. MSNBC also notes that since the Pennsylvania primary, Obama has picked up eight superdelegates and Clinton has gathered just four.

Braley was a staunch supporter of former Sen. John Edwards' (D-N.C.) campaign and had remained neutral since Edwards dropped out. His support is a boost to Obama, who needs to show superdelegates still favor him following the Wright fallout yesterday.

Update: The Politico reports today that many uncommitteds in Congress are already backing Obama but are waiting for the right time to announce their support. Here's the key source:

'The majority of superdelegates I’ve talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing,' said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). 'They’re just preferring to make their decision public after the primaries are over. ... They would like someone else to act for them before they talk about it in the cold light of day.'

Could the timing ever be better than now? If a slew of superdelegates announced their Obama support today or tomorrow, wouldn't it squash the Wright story and any doubts among Democrats that Obama is vulnerable?

Clinton Hits Back With Her Own Superdelegate

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:10:00 GMT

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) fired back with a superdelegate of her own this morning, gaining the backing of Pennsylvania AFL-CIO president Bill George.

George, per the release:

'Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to jumpstart the economy and rebuild the middle class,' George said. 'Working families in Pennsylvania overwhelmingly favored her in last week’s primary, and I feel that she is our strongest candidate to carry Pennsylvania in November and win back the White House.'

In the wake of Obama's divorce from Wright yesterday, it looks like the two campaigns are going to slug is out today by announcing superdelegates. Time magazine's Mark Halperin highlights a key quote from ABC's George Stephanopoulos saying the Obama campaign is planni

Indiana Super Goes for Obama

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:20:38 GMT

Greg Sargent at TPM reports that Indiana Congressman and superdelegate Baron Hill is going to endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) Hill is Obama's second superdelegate pick up today.

Hill could be as critical to Obama as North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley's endorsement is for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hill, a Blue Dog Democrat, represents Indiana's highly competitive ninth district. The district has been a battleground since Hill was first elected in 1998. Hill lost the seat to Republican Mike Sodrel in 2004 but then took the seat back in 2006. He could be a crucial Obama surrogate in Republican leaning districts in the state.

The Super Battle Continues

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:10:54 GMT

The super delegate continues to evolve today with Marc Ambinder reporting that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has picked up the endorsement of Luisette Cabanas, a Puerto Rican superdelegate. Evidently Chelsea Clinton went all the way to Puerto Rico to get it!

Meanwhile, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) has answered by endorsing Obama, MSNBC reports.

So who gets the edge here? I think Obama. Capps is co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues and chair of the Democratic Women's Working group. Capps assumed her husband's seat in congress when he passed away in 1997. It should strengthen Obama's credentials among women's groups (a Clinton stronghold) while Cabanas is a rather obscure superdelegate.

Today's super tally: Obama 3, Clinton 2.

Big Super Switches to Obama

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:15:51 GMT

Joe Andrew, the head of the Democratic National Committee from 1999 to 2001, will switch his endorsement from Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today, The AP reports. Andrew is set to hold a press conference today and is writing a letter explaining his switch that he says he plans to send to other superdelegates.

"I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it's now bad for the Democratic Party," Andrew told The AP. "A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists [Sen.] John McCain (R-Ariz.)."

This is a blow to Clinton. It was former President Bill Clinton who appointed Andrew to the DNC. Andrew's shift in support undermines Clinton's argument that she now has the momentum and Democrats are worried about Obama's electability. Andrews, however, told The AP that Obama's handling of the Wright controversy over the past few days was one reason he switched.

Hillary Launches N.C. Ad With Southern Twang

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:02:48 GMT

Here is the Clinton camp's latest ad running in North Carolina. It features Clinton backer Gov. Mike Easley touching on nearly every point of Clinton's plan to appeal to the middle class. Here's part of Easley's script, delivered with a thick Southern twang:

She's going to turn the economy around, she's going bring new jobs, she's going to get some tax cuts for the middle class for a change.

She's going to make health care available to everybody in this country, and she's going to do everything she can to help every child reach their full potential.

She is so resilient, so determined.

This is undoubtedly part of the Clinton strategy to solidify her base of lower and middle class white voters. But I don't see how this can help her make any inroads into Obama's base of black voters, that make up a large portion of the North Carolina electorate. The black vote will be crucial to Clinton if she wants to make the state competitive. This ad might be more effective in Indiana, but Clinton doesn't have a surrogate with Easley's clout there to deliver it.