Angry Democratic White Men/3 - an Interview with Michael Katz

Michael B. Katz is Walter H. Annenberg Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania. He is considered one of America’s leading experts on the history of social welfare, poverty and inequality. Professor Katz spoke with Marco Polo Review of Books about the issue of racism and how it might affect Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Marco Polo (MP): There has been much talking recently about Barack Obama’s problem with white working class voters. Do you think that this is true at the national level or are his difficulties with this particular constituency regionally-based?
Michael Katz (MK): My sense is that it may be a problem in general with white working class voters but I suspect that it is more extreme and regionally concentrated in some areas, such as rural areas and Southern states. Basically we are talking about those places with a history of slavery and confederation, where I think racism lingers, especially among less educated people.

MP: How much do you think these problems could affect the general elections and the race against John McCain? Is it something the Democratic Party should seriously worry about? And could it be an issue that might convince super-delegates to endorse Clinton against the results of the primaries?
MK: My suspicion is that if Obama wins the greater number of delegates, the majority of leaders and officials of the Democratic Party will move behind him and mobilize in those areas where he has been weak. In the cities this would be easier to do because there are more established Democratic machines and voters could be rallied more easily. As far as white working class voters that seem hostile to Obama, their influence in the general election will depend on the state where they are located, what percentage of the population they comprise and if they will turn out to vote. In the last analysis, these people will really have to ask themselves if they want to vote for a Republican, considering the state of things now, between the Iraq war, the economy, gas prices, and the housing crisis. I think it will be very hard for them to make such choice. Then there is the other side of the issue as well, or the disgruntled Republicans. Yesterday I read an interesting piece on The Nation which pointed out that in a number of primaries, Republicans chose to vote in the Democratic contest and over 70% of them cast a ballot for Obama.
So, I think these will be very complicated elections; on one hand there will be white working class Democrats that could go Republican. On the other, there could be those frustrated Rockefeller-type Republicans that might go Democratic.
And, we should consider that there might be a slight decline in white working class voters’ turnout, but other than that there will be a huge participation among African Americans and young people. Obama has this way of mobilizing people that is incredible.

MP: What kind of an African American would you say Barack Obama is? How black is he?
MK: It is not a question of how black he is; it is a question of how street he is. And he is not street. He is a highly educated, articulate, handsome, presentable American and, let’s put it this way, I think that most Americans that would be uncomfortable with Jesse Jackson would be comfortable with Obama.

MP: Considering his peculiar profile and personal history, do you think Barack Obama should be viewed as a symbol of real change in America, of the end of an era of segregation and discrimination? How much instead is he just an exception?

MK: I honestly think that his candidature is a momentous development because, it is true, he does have a white mother and an unusual upbringing, but he is cast in the mind of the public as an African American, that is how people look at him. The fact that an African American could very well be the next President is unprecedented; something that ten years ago I would not have imagined could happen in my lifetime. But it can only be an African American who has Obama’s characteristics, well spoken and highly educated. It could not be someone like Al Sharpton.

MP: Because of his mixed racial heritage, his international background and his degrees from Ivy League universities, would you say that there could be doubts about Barack Obama within the African-American community itself?

MK: There was some discussion of it earlier, about the fact that Obama wasn’t black enough. But then people have come around. The African-American population in general has a very mixed background, and the homogenous view that is normally cast is simplistic and racist. Obama falls within this group.

MP: In conclusion, what do you think will be the biggest challenges for Barack Obama in running for President of the US?
MK: I do share the worry of many people that he might be a target for assassination. This is true for Hillary Clinton too. I think every President is, but there are hardcore racist people and hardcore misogynist people. I don’t think that this should stop him from running or people from supporting him. But I hope his security is well taken care of. Just think about those doctors who perform abortion and how heavily they are targeted by groups of extremists.
Secondly, he will have to unite the Democratic Party. He has to win over the people that have been Hillary Clinton supporters and he has to make them enthusiastic and get them to work for him and to go vote. I think Clinton will come around and she will support him wholeheartedly.
In the end, the two elements that will decide the race are, on one hand, the attraction for Obama, which is very great. On the other, there is the repulsion for Bush. So the next thing to watch in this election is how successful John McCain will be in distancing himself from Bush. But Republicans have a terrible record right now.

John McCain's Decisive Handicap

Hillary Clinton is making her case to the superdelegates claiming that she would be "a stronger candidate," and cites recent poll in which McCain has a narrow lead over Obama.
The problem with such horserace polls, however, is that they are not very accurate predictors of the actual election results. Polls in the spring of 1988 showed Michael Dukakis with a comfortable lead over George H.W. Bush and polls in June of 1992 showed Bill Clinton running third behind both Bush and H. Ross Perot. So recent polls showing a close race between McCain and Obama may not tell us much about what to expect in November.
Instead of using polls, political scientists rely on measures of the national political climate because it can be measured long before the election and it has a powerful influence on the eventual results. As we wrote in several occasions, in 2008 all forecasts point to the Democrats.
Three indicators of the national political climate have accurately predicted the outcomes of presidential elections since the end of World War II: the incumbent president's approval rating at mid-year, the growth rate of the economy during the second quarter of the election year, and the length of time the president's party has held the White House.
The higher the president's approval rating and the stronger the growth rate of the economy, the more likely it is that the president's party will be victorious. However, if the president's party has controlled the White House for two terms or longer it is less likely to be successful. Time-for-change sentiment seems to increase after eight years regardless of the president's popularity or the state of the economy.
These three factors can be combined to produce an Electoral Barometer score that measures the overall national political climate. The formula for computing this score is simply the president's net approval rating (approval minus disapproval) in the Gallup Poll plus five times the annual growth rate of real GDP minus 25 if the president's party has held the White House for two terms or longer.

This would give a 2008 castastrophic forecast for the Republican party, based on President Bush's net approval rating in the most recent Gallup Poll (-39), the annual growth rate of the economy during the first quarter of 2008 (+0.6 percent), and the fact that the Republican Party has controlled the White House for the past eight years. The current Electoral Barometer reading would be a dismal -63.

This number translates into a decisive defeat for the Republican presidential candidate. The only election since World War II with a score in this range was 1980. In that election, a combination of economic troubles and personal unpopularity provoked the defeat of Jimmy Carter, the worst one for an incumbent president since Herbert Hoover in 1932. The second lowest score, -50, occurred in 1952. That was the last election in which neither the incumbent president, Democrat Harry Truman, nor the incumbent vice-president appeared on the ballot. Nevertheless, the candidate trying to succeed Truman, Democrat Adlai Stevenson, lost in a landslide to general Eisenhower.

It is possible that factors like deep-seated streams of racism against Barack Obama, and the split in the Democratic camp, would work at the margins, limiting the dimensions of the Republican Waterloo. The final result, however, should not be in doubt.

Angry Democratic White Men/2

What is important, in these comments by angry supporters of John Edwards, is the extent of their resentment, and their willingness to accept the rumors, half-truths, and complete fabrications spread during a presidential campaign. We must remember that these people certainly are part of the most active voters, not uninvolved citizens prone to swallow any lie that surfaces on the Internet. This is another comment posted on the ABC blog: “At the end of the day, the core preoccupation about our floundering Democracy lies in the issue of consistency and integrity. John Edwards knows that Obama is the ‘offspring’ of Chicago’s corrupt political machine, but he still supports him. John Edwards understands that Obama has personally funded, via his directorship in the Woodsfund, terrorist sympathizers (Khalidi and others) who claim that SUICIDE BOMBING is a legitimate method of resistance fighting (even if used against school children). John Edwards also knows that Obama is completely unprepared to become Commander in Chief, something to which he had continuously alluded to in multiple interviews, nevertheless, we now have him riding this faux pony all the way to the White House.”

Another participant takes issue with the perks of politicians: “I had heard on my local CBS radio station today that local US congressmen even charge the taxpayers for gasoline. So, on top of the best health care in the world, we pay the $4/gal gas for their SUVs. Yes, SUVs. Then they have the gall to lecture us about our polluting the air.”

Some readers try to defend Edwards’ endorsement of Obama: “I do not care how win the nommination!obama or clinton.democrat have to win,in november” but the majority vents its anger at his repudiation of Hillary Clinton: “John Edwards lies like a rug! I would not trust him anymore than I would Barack Obama or any other Democratic bully boys! Edward's funny timing endorcement for Sen Barack Obama amazes me, especially right after Hillary's landslide victory in West Virginia. GO-Go Sen. Hillary Clinton in '08....” and this: “John Edwards what a snake. Elizabeth [Edwards] must be really proud of your endorsement of Osama right now. I had thought better of you. Guess a lot of people were wrong about what you really stood for. Sad.”

And another one: “Does Edwards really believes that the American people are so stupid as to buy into his story that there was no deal cut to endorse Obama? He is just an opportunist who ran away from the North Carolina Senate reelection because he knew he would have never been reelected.”

The threat to jump ship in November is crystal clear: “Edwards has gone to being a man for the people to supporting elitists. You go figure. I am voting for McCain Well I think I am just not voting.”

There are some responses:”All of you so called "democrats" who insist that if Obama gets the nomination then you will vote for McCain in the fall. Well, you'll show them huh? Then we will have a 3rd term of Bush as if the country had not had enough already. WOW just because the nominee that some democrats wanted Hillary isn't going to get the nomination doesn't mean that you should switch parties. What are you accomplishing? If you vote out of anger and not on the issues then you are only hurting yourselves.”

Nevertheless, the split in the party is there and it is clearly dangerous in some swing States needed to create a majority in the electoral college: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan. While it is technically possible, for Obama, to get 270 electoral votes and win without Ohio (if he prevails in some western States like Nebraska, Montana, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico) he definitely need Pennsylvania and Michigan, where many low-income white families do think along the lines we described above.

Angry Democratic White Men/1

A number of high-profile political figures like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, governor of New York David Paterson have brought black politicians in the spotlight, and created the impression that the color of skin is no more a factor in the mind of voters. Unfortunately, this is wrong: most of these high-profile figures have been appointed, not elected, and it makes an enormous difference when someone must present himself to the judgment of citizens. The depth of resentment against “elitist” politicians, and the extent of hidden racism among white voters is apparent in the comments published by an ABC blog after John Edward’s endorsement of Obama.

Dozens, probably hundreds of Edward’s supporters rebelled against this choice, flatly ignoring the fact that Obama’ political positions are very close to those of their preferred candidate. Edward was at the far left of the political spectrum, but nevertheless he is a white Southerner, and this is what many of his fans had to say (I keep the original spelling for authenticity): “Obama is a superficial, arrogant individual who is dangerous. He said he is here to unite.. but he is here to destroy. A uniter doesn't go to the San Francisco elite fundraisers and talk behind America's back.”

Another one, referring to Obama and Edwards together on stage: “Actually both of them look quite effeminate. Maybe I would call them a lesbian couple??? No offense to the real lesbian intended.” The fact that both Edward and Obama are happily married with children didn’t prevent another angry voter from writing: “Maybe wants more $400 haircuts. is he gay?" Many were convinced that Obama paid the endorsement promising future appointments to Edwards: “No deal was cut? Yeah, I sure believe that. And to think Edwards used to be my guy.” Another one: Edwards is a traitor to the American working class that he teared up about. Political bull****. He is a traitor to West Virginia who chose who they believe will better represent them and help them. I cannot get over how out of touch these dems have become. Hello Edwards - you just betrayed the memory of your father.” And one more: He didn't endorse barack obama just for the sake of endorsing him. Like Bill richardson, edwards has an motive. Unfortunately for them, Barack Hussien Obama will never be president.”

Other contributors to the blog mocked the Democratic party: “Politics of Change! Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. Politics of Change! Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. Politics of Change! Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. This is Obama's New Washington! Kennedy – Loser. Kerry – Loser. Richardson – Loser. Dean – Loser. Edwards – Loser.” (more).

How Will Obama Perform in November?

No matter what, Barack Obama has secured the nomination: he need only 63 more delegates to cross the required number of 2,025. However, the first Afroamerican candidate to the presidency nominated by a major party has many serious problems that the media is ignoring. While the conventional wisdom is that hate and racism disappeared in American politics, the fact that they are banned in polite discourse in Manhattan doesn’t mean that they are equally banned at the ballot box. 

The actual performance of Afroamerican politicians in elections is mixed at best. A number of them have been elected mayors (David Dinkins in New York, Harold Washington in Chicago, Andrew Young in Atlanta, Kurt Schmoke in Baltimore (MD), Harvey Gannt in Charlotte (SC), and many others). There is a number of successful representatives, whose dean is Charles Rangel, who has been in the House since 1971, taking over the Harlem’s seat of colourful Adam Clayton Powell. And, of course, there has been a handful of black senators: Obama himself had Carol Moseley Braun among his predecessor in Illinois, but she was a one-term senator, elected in 1992 and easily defeated in 1998. Gannt run twice, in 1990 and in 1996, against aging Republican Jesse Helms in South Carolina and he was defeated twice, favorable polls notwithstanding. Harold Ford was a young and dynamic politician, but he failed to win the Tennessee Senate seat in 2006.

This experience in various elections suggests that charismatic politicians of Afroamerican origin can win, but they some times underperform compared to the expectations in the polls. If a black candidate is credited of 53% of the vote 24 hours before the voting, his actual results may be between 48% and 51%. People were simply ashamed of saying pollsters they would NOT vote for him, inflating his numbers in the polls and depressing them in the actual results. Does this mean that Obama is a weak candidate? Not in the least, but he will need a mistake-free campaign because his margins will be smaller than those of a white candidate. This is clearly shown by the angry reactions of some Edward’s supporters to the announcement that he would endorse Obama (more later on this). We are strongly convinced, however, that race will a factor much less important this year, and that long-term demographic and political trends will propel Obama to victory in November.

A History of Women Running for President

Washington D.C. - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is probably the most famous to date, and certainly the one who is closest to actually winning her party's nomination, but she's definitely not the first American woman to run for President of the United States.

Research from the National Women's History Museum shows that at least 35 women have tried before. Most remain unknown, and a few represented parties of dubious standing, including the Surprise Party and the Looking Back Party. Some of them, however, are worth mentioning.

It was Victoria Claflin Woodhull (in the photo) who first undertook the long, and yet to be completed, journey to a woman president. In 1890 she announced her intention of running by sending a letter to the New York Herald, despite being too young too qualify as a candidate. The elections were still two years away, by which point she would have been 34, and Ms. Woodhull used that time to travel across the country campaigning and raising awareness of women's issues. A colorful personality considered among the initiators of the suffragists movement, one must remember that Victoria Woodhull ran at a time when, as a woman, she didn't even have the right to vote. Stirring controversies everywhere she went, she was incarcerated at the time the elections took place, on charges of libel and obscenity.

In 1884 came the turn of Belva Lockwood, who ran for the Equal Rights Party, which not only advocated for extending all rights to women, but also had plans for the economy and foreign affairs.

The first credible female candidate was Margaret Chase Smith, who ran in 1964 for the Republican Party after having served in Congress for 32 years, the first woman to be elected to both the House and the Senate. She won 27 delegates at the convention, where she lost the nomination to conservative Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.

Patsy Takemoto Mink was number four. An Hawaiian of Japanese descent whose father, despite being a U.S. citizen, had nonetheless been put under surveillance and interrogated in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, Ms. Mink was the first non-white woman to appear on a presidential ballot when a group of liberal democrats asked her to run in the Oregon primaries in 1972.

Shirley Anita Chisholm was the first well-known African-American woman to run for President. A democrat, and the first African-American woman in Congress, she gave a shot to the White House during her second term as a Congresswoman, in 1972.

More recently Elizabeth Hanford Dole, wife of Kansas Senator Robert Dole, ran against George W. Bush and John McCain in the Republican primaries of 2000.

Finally, in 2003 Illinois Senator Carol Moseley-Braun announced her intention of taking part in the Democratic primaries. However, encountering difficulties in fund-raising, she dropped out before the January Iowa Caucus.
This year is Hillary Clinton's year, although numbers suggest that the United States might have to wait at least four more years before electing a woman president.

Another inconclusive primary night

Everything went as expected on yet another Tuesday night of primaries.
Hillary Clinton won easily in Kentucky with 65% of the votes (and 72% of the votes of white Americans). In her victory speech she pledged to continue on while thanking her supporters for their dedication. "I will never give up on you," Clinton told a cheering crowd in Louisville.
At the same time, Obama took Oregon and came one step closer to sealing the nomination. According to his campaign team, even just with the delegates that the Senator from Illinois will pick up in Kentucky despite the defeat (we must remember that delegates in the democratic primaries are apportioned proportionally to the percentage of popular vote a candidate wins), Obama amassed, as of tonight, more than half of the pledged delegates going to the convention. Speaking in Iowa, where Obama successfully kicked off the primary season in January, he said that the nomination is now "within reach."
Hillary Clinton can only hope that the superdelegates who have yet to endorse either of the candidates will choose to support her and, in doing so, will overturn the verdict carried by the pledged delegates.
In order to find a rationale that might convince the superdelegates to make this choice, the Clinton campaign is coming up with increasingly elaborate calculations that seemingly prove that the ex-first lady is actually ahead in the race.
It started with the popular vote, which according to Clinton, must include the ballots cast in Michigan and Florida despite there is no agreement yet on what to do with those two states. The most recent count, instead, has to do with the electoral votes, those that will determine the outcome of the general elections in November. Apparently Clinton has won in those states that offer more electorate votes, supposedly proving that she is a stronger candidate.The Clinton campaign keeps changing the definition of what victory is, how votes should be counted and which states matter the most, according to her showing.

George W. Bush's Fin de Règne

While Dubya travels the Middle East and gives nonsensical speeches to the Israeli Parliament, Congress has sent him a farm bill that includes a lot of money for food stamps amid rising grocery prices (and a boost in farm subsidies in order to create a veto-proof majority). The Senate passed the bill 81-15 Thursday, a day after the House approved it with 318 "yes" votes, that means enough votes to override a presidential veto in both houses of Congress. Bush had threatened to veto the $290 billion bill, saying with a straight face that it is fiscally irresponsible. What is remarkable is that this is the very first time in seven and a half years that a number of Republicans rebel against the White House.

"Republicans Must Stand for Something!", or Who Needs Friends When Enemies Work For You?

No less the engineer of a vision of politics based upon dirty tricks, Karl Rove, writes that "As Republican ranks declined, the number of independents and Democrats grew. Has the bottom been reached?". So, what we have been saying for months now has been vindicated by "Bush's Brain" himself: powerful currents in American politics do favor the Democrats in 2008, and panic is spreading in the GOP. 

Rove has his recipe for winning the Presidency (not even the Virgin of Guadalupe could make Republicans win back Congress, where a Democratic landslide is more or less inevitable) and the prescription would be: "Republicans Must Stand for Something!" This doesn't sound very original (even if the entire leadership of the ITALIAN Democratic party could benefit from the advice) and it skips a very basic point: "Will a majority of voters AGREE with the SOMETHING offered to them?"

The very issues advanced by Rove in his column seem to go precisely in the opposite direction: To tell Americans that they are winning in Iraq and that the economy is improving appears to be a message rejected by two thirds, or even three fourths, of the voters. If this is what the political guru of the Wall Street Journal has to say, Democrats should start making preparations for their victory party in November.

"The math is controlling. This race, I believe, is over”

After Hillary Clinton's victory in West Virginia, former Governor of Colorado Roy Romer, said that he endorsed Obama because "The math is controlling." And indeed it is so: the race is over, comments by Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director, notwithstanding. Wolfson said Tuesday: “I think superdelegates who have been moving toward Barack Obama in the last week are going to wake up tomorrow and say, ‘I’m a little concerned about the fact that our nominee, presumptive nominee, can’t win West Virginia. I’m a little concerned that he can’t win Pennsylvania or Ohio, or Michigan, or Florida."

Well, Wolfson might be correct, but up to a point: Superdelegates are cold-blooded politicians and they know that a Superdelegates' coup d'état handing the nomination to Hillary would fracture the party right in the middle, with all young people and all African Americans (the two most loyal constituencies this year) simply walking out (and may even supporting an independent candidate). Not to mention the fact that Clinton should convince NINETY-ONE PERCENT of the Superdelegates still uncommitted today, to snatch the nomination.

The fact that this scenario is a fairy tale doesn't mean that the problem of working class male who tend to vote Republican doesn't exist, as we pointed out earlier this year in several posts. However, the electorate of the two parties strongly polarized in the last 8 years, and most Democratic voters, even unhappy with Obama, will come back to the fold in November. The real issue is not how many of them will defect, but in which states: Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Nevada are states where a handful of ballots changing side can deliver the victory to either candidate. And prevailing in those swing states is crucial to winning an Electoral College majority.

The Importance of The Mobilization of Democratic Voters

Anyone who doesn't think Democratic voters are fired up for this year's election is not paying attention. On Tuesday, over 1.25 million Indianans voted for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primary. This is 30% more of the total votes received in 2004 by presidential candidate John Kerry in the general election. The Democratic vote in the Indiana primary not only outstrips Kerry's total from the general-usually the vote in aprimary is about 50% of the vote in November-but it is closer to Bush's vote total in Indiana than it is to Kerry's. Bush received about 1.48 million votes in Indiana in 2004, 60% of the vote.

Indiana didn't vote for a Democratic candidate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and, looking to the number of votes in the general election, the last time a Democrat topped the one-million mark was in 1976. Jimmy Carter was nevertheless defeated by Gerald Ford. That means that 1.25 million votes indeed is a historic achievement.

The combined results of Obama and Clinton in Indiana confirm a trend that was already apparent in the first primaries: the exceptionally high turnout among Democratic voters, and the depressed turnout among Republican voters.This is enormously important because the main political trend in recent years has been the polarization of the electorate: about 90 percent of those identifying with a political party vin a given year do vote for that party's presidential candidate in November. In 2004, exit polls showed that John Kerry had won 89 percent of the Democratic vote, George W. Bush 93 percent of the Republican vote. 

In other words, there is a huge advantage for the party that is ahead in what political scientists call "party identification," simply because its pool of voters is larger. And what is the situation today? The Democratic advantage is now of 10 points, according to Rasmussen, one of the widest partisan gaps ever measured and it is clearly linked to the interest created by the primaries season.

Conclusion: even if the internecine war between Clinton and Obama will leave some scars in the party, the clear trend this year is toward a mobilization of Democratic voters that should propel the nominee over the top in November, whoever he or she is.

Obama, the Youngsters's Candidate

The race for the Democratic nomination can go on for some more days, or weeks, but the final result is no more in doubt. Barack Obama will be the nominee and his victory owes much to the mobilization of young people. But how many are they?

Obama has an overwhelming support among the 17-29 years-old, but this age group is smaller, and less inclined to vote than seniors (who are richer, more motivated by civic duty and less in trouble with the justice system). In 2004, for example, two over-60 citizens voted for every under-29 one, as it happened last Tuesday in North Carolina. In this state, 30% of voters in the Democratic primary were seniors, against 14% of juniors. In Indiana, the ratio was 25% to 17%, while in Pennsylvania it was an amazing 32% to 12%. That means that Obama may have a potent support, and thousand of volunteers working for him, but in the general election the youngsters as a group are far from being the decisive factor.

Clinton, The Candidate of Seniors

The brawl for the Democratic nomination may be about to stop: numbers leave no chance to Clinton of snatching the nomination. However, Obama may have several concerns to think about in the coming weeks (aside the fact that Hillary hasn't withdraw yet). One is his trouble in convincing the 65+, voters, who in Indiana preferred Clinton by a massive 71% to 29%. This pattern was already established in the first primaries and caucuses and was particularly apparent in Ohio, where Hillary crushed Obama in this age group by a whopping 46-point margin, and Tennessee, where she got 40 percentage points more than her opponent.
Obama still has an overwhelming support among the 18-29 years-old, but this age group is smaller, and less inclined to vote than seniors. In 2004, for example, two over-65 citizens voted for every under-29 one. That means that facing McCain (an appealing figure to seniors, at least because he is over-70 himself) Obama may have a potentially dangerous weakness in the general election. Seniors count for much in some key states like Florida and Ohio, that in 2000 and in 2004 went to George Bush, tilting the electoral college to Republicans.

Obama Two Steps Closer to The Nomination

In the end, Barack Obama remained barely 13,000 votes behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the hard-fought primary in Indiana, where the outcome was clear only after counting the very last vote. As Indiana has been a draw, and not the large vicotry Clinton needed, Obama is now much closer to the nomination: on Tuesday the Illinois senator won a commanding victory in the North Carolina primary, too. He has now enough momentum to widen his lead in pledged delegates, and new ammunition in seeking to persuade Democratic leaders to rally around his campaign.

Don't Forget About Congress...

Some interesting news about Congress. In the House District LA-06, centered around Baton Rouge (Louisiana), Don Cazayoux (D) defeated local newspaper publisher Woody Jenkins (R) in a special election to fill the seat vacated by the Republican Richard Baker, who resigned from the House to become a lobbyist. Cazayou got 49% of the vote to Jenkins' 46% in a race with major national implications: LA-06 is a heavily Republican district that has been in GOP's hands for 33 years. President Bush got 59% of the vote there in 2004.

Both parties spent like drunken sailors advertising there. The rationale was that in a year when deep currents of American politics favor the Democrats both campaigns needed to know how much a "safe" republican seat was, indeed safe. Therefore, NRCC nicknamed Don Cazayoux (a Cajun name) "Don Tax You" and claimed he is a "liberal," which he most certainly is not. At this point, contrary to the media establishment, the Republicans assume Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee and LA-06 was a field test of their November strategy to paint him as a big-government, high-tax, arugula-eating, out-of-touch, arrogant liberal. 

Unfortunately, it didn't work, even in a very conservative area. Today, every Republican in the House is going to be thinking "There but for the grace of God go I." If a well-known strongly conservative GOP candidate with 28 years experience in the state legislature can't win an open seat in a heavily Republican district that the GOP has held since 1975, what is going to happen in the many open seats and marginal Republican districts in November?

Obama Attacks Both Clinton and McCain on Gas Tax

While mainstream media are in a frenzy over Barack Obama's pastor, the candidate chose to speak forcefully about the one issue that may be paramount in the mind of voters: inflation, particularly at the gas pump. And he took issue with the farfetched proposal of Clinton and McCain about a "Gas Tax Holiday" during the Summer, discussed here.

Obama especially needs to focus again on the issues, because Rev. Wright's ramblings took a toll on his standing: for the first time in months, polls give Hillary Clinton a statistically insignificant but politically important advantage over him among Democratic voters.