Anderson Cooper 360 » Lanny Davis

The Final Argument for Hillary Clinton for President

barclay360 — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:36:07 +0000

Lanny J. Davis
Former special counsel to President Clinton, and supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign

After the votes are in from Puerto Rico tomorrow and South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will be able to make a facts-based case that they represent a significant majority of grass-roots Democrats. Chances are Sens. Obama and Clinton will virtually split the more than 4,400 delegates—including Florida and Michigan—elected by more than 34 million people over the past five months.

Sen. Clinton has already won the most votes, but there is controversy over including the over 300,000 votes from Michigan, since Sen. Obama was not on the ballot (by his own choice). But if Sen. Clinton wins a substantial victory in Puerto Rico tomorrow—with an expected record turnout exceeding two million voters—she could well end up with more popular votes than Sen. Obama, even if Michigan’s primary votes are excluded.

Worst case, she could come out with a 2% deficit in elected pledged delegates. But that gap can be made up, if most of the remaining 200 or so unpledged superdelegates decide to support Sen. Clinton as the strongest candidate against John McCain—or if others committed to Sen. Obama decide to change their minds for the same reason. A number of superdelegates previously committed to Sen. Clinton later announced support for Sen. Obama, so it’s certainly possible that, when confronted with growing evidence that Sen. Clinton is stronger than Sen. McCain, they might switch back.

The final argument for Hillary comes down to three points—with points one and two leading to the third.

First, Sen. Clinton is more experienced and qualified to be president than is Sen. Obama. This is not to say Sen. Obama cannot be a good, even great, president. I believe he can. But Sen. Clinton spent eight years in the White House. She was not a traditional first lady. She was involved in policy and debate on virtually every major domestic and foreign policy decision of the Clinton presidency, both “in” and “outside” the room with her husband. She has been a U.S. senator for eight years and has a record of legislative accomplishments, including as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

With no disrespect or criticism intended, Sen. Obama has been an Illinois state senator for eight years and a U.S. senator for just four years. He has, understandably, fewer legislative accomplishments than Sen. Clinton. That’s just a fact.

Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that Sen. Clinton would be less vulnerable to criticism from Sen. McCain on the “experience” issue.

Second, Sen. Clinton’s position on health care gives her an advantage over Sen. McCain. Her proposal for universally mandated health care based primarily on private insurance and individual choices is a stark contrast to Sen. McCain’s total reliance on private market insurance, HMOs or emergency rooms for the 45 million or more uninsured. Sen. Obama’s position, while laudable in its objective, does not mandate universal care and, arguably, won’t challenge Sen. McCain as effectively as will Sen. Clinton’s plan.

Despite the fact that Sen. Obama’s campaign made the Iraq war a crucial issue in the Iowa caucuses and early primaries, there has never been a significant difference between his position and Sen. Clinton’s.

Sen. Obama deserves credit for opposing military intervention in Iraq while he was running for the state senate in early 2002.

But in 2004, Sen. Obama said he “did not know” how he would have voted on the war resolution had he been a senator at the time. That summer he told the Chicago Tribune: “There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage” of the Iraq War. (This is a statement that Sen. Clinton would not have made.) While he served in the Senate, he voted 84 out of 85 times the same as Sen. Clinton on Iraq-war related votes. The only exception is when he supported President Bush’s position on the promotion of a general that Sen. Clinton opposed.

Third and finally, there is recent hard data showing that, at least at the present time, Sen. Clinton is a significantly stronger candidate against Sen. McCain among the general electorate (as distinguished from the more liberal Democratic primary and caucus electorate).

According to Gallup’s May 12-25 tracking polling of 11,000 registered voters in all 50 states plus Washington, D.C., Sen. Clinton is running stronger against Sen. McCain in the 20 states where she can claim popular-vote victory in the primaries and caucuses. In contrast, Sen. Obama runs no better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Clinton in the 28 states plus D.C. where he has prevailed. “On this basis,” Gallup concludes: “Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.”

The 20 states, Gallup points out, not only encompass more than 60% of the nation’s voters, but “represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama’s 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.” Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain in these 20 states by seven points (50%-43%), while Sens. Obama and McCain are pretty much tied. But in the 26 states plus D.C. that Sen. Obama carried in the primaries/caucuses, he and Sen. Clinton are both statistically tied with Sen. McCain (Clinton 45%-McCain 47%; Obama 45%-McCain 46%).

Gallup’s state-by-state polling in seven key battleground “purple” states also shows Sen. Clinton winning cumulatively in these states by a six-point margin (49%-43%) over Sen. McCain, while Sen. Obama loses to Sen. McCain by three points—a net advantage of 9% for Sen. Clinton. These key seven states—constituting 105 electoral votes—are Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Arkansas, Florida and Michigan.

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama holds about an equal advantage over Sen. McCain in six important swing states that he carried in the primaries and caucuses—Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri. But these constitute less than half—54—of the electoral votes of the larger states in which Sen. Clinton is leading.

The latest state-by-state battleground polls (published May 21-23) by other respected polling organizations verify Gallup’s findings that Sen. Clinton is significantly stronger against Sen. McCain in the key states that a Democrat must win to gain the presidency. According to various poll data within the last 10 days:

*Pennsylvania: Sen. Clinton leads McCain 50%-39%; Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are effectively tied.

*Ohio: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 48%-41%, Sen. Obama is down 44%-40%.

*Florida: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 47%-41%; Sen. McCain leads Sen. Obama 50%-40%. (Sen. Clinton has a net advantage of 16 points!)

*North Carolina: Despite a substantial primary victory, Sen. Obama is down 8% vs. Sen. McCain, (51%-43%), while Sen. Clinton leads by 6% (49%-43%).

*Nevada: Sen. Clinton up 5%, Sen. Obama down 6%.

Even the theory that Sen. Obama can open up significant numbers of “red” states has not been borne out by recent polling. For example: in Virginia, which Sen. Obama won substantially in the Feb. 12 Democratic primary, he is currently down in at least one recent, respected poll by a significant 9% margin—one point greater than the 8% margin Sen. Clinton is behind Sen. McCain.

Finally, one unfortunate argument is making the rounds lately to convince superdelegates to go for Sen. Obama. That is the prediction that if Sen. Obama is not the nominee, African-American and other passionate Obama supporters will conclude that the nomination had been “stolen” and will walk out of the convention or stay at home. On the other side are the many women and others strongly committed to Sen. Clinton promising that if she is denied the nomination, they will refuse to vote for Sen. Obama.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are progressive, pro-civil rights, pro-affirmative action, pro-choice Democrats. Neither Obama supporters nor Clinton supporters who care about the issues, the Supreme Court, and the need to begin withdrawing from Iraq can truly mean they will actively or passively help Sen. McCain get elected.

Threats of walkouts or stay-at-homes by good Democrats are not the answer, nor should they be a factor in superdelegate decisions.

But there is one possible scenario that avoids disappointment and frustration by passionate supporters of both candidates, that combines the strengths of one with the strengths of the other, and that virtually guarantees the election of a Democratic president in 2008:

A Clinton-Obama or an Obama-Clinton ticket.

Stay tuned.

Editor's Note: This essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal.

The Clintons played the race card? A media-created Big Lie

barclay360 — Sun, 04 May 2008 14:26:57 +0000

Lanny J. Davis
Friend and supporter of Senator Clinton and fundraiser for her presidential campaign

It's bad enough that the charge of "playing the race" card against Senator and President Clinton is utterly and demonstrably false.

But so many African Americans have come to believe this bogus charge that Senator Clinton's favorable opinions in the black community have dropped significantly and many are telling reporters they won't support Senator Clinton in the general election if she wins the nomination.

The false perception that Senator and President Clinton interjected race into the campaign for political purposes is a direct result of distorted reporting by most of the media covering the race. Let's look at the facts behind the four incidents that, in a space of 1-2 months, led to converting the Big Lie into a perceived truth by so many Democrats, black and white alike:

1. The drug issue: In December 2007, Senator Clinton's New Hampshire campaign chairman told a reporter he was worried about the Republican hate machine misusing Senator Obama's statement in his first book that he had experimented with drugs as a youth. The campaign official immediately realized his error, apologized, and voluntarily resigned his position. Senator Clinton immediately personally apologized to Senator Obama.

Yet the media widely reported that the Clinton campaign was behind this statement as part of a deliberate effort to "play the race card." There was never then, and is still not now, a shred of fact or evidence to support that charge. Yet many African Americans believed it.

2. President Clinton's "fairy tale" phrase: Just before the January 8 New Hampshire primary, the media repeatedly reported in print and on TV that President Clinton had described the "Obama campaign" as a "fairy tale." But this was another lie.

The "fairy tale" phrase, in fact, was used by President Clinton only to describe Senator Obama's description of his consistent opposition to the 2002 Iraq war vote and the conduct of the war, in contrast to Senator Clinton's record.

(In fact, since Senator Obama arrived in the Senate in January 2005, he and Senator Clinton voted the same on 84-85 votes regarding the war, with the only exception when Senator Obama supported the President's promotion of a general and Senator Clinton opposing it. Few anti-war, pro-Obama Democrats even today are aware of these undisputable facts.)

But when African Americans heard the media state in print and on TV again and again that President Clinton had called the Obama "campaign" or "narrative" a "fairy tale," they erroneously believed that to be true. And they were naturally offended because they thought President Clinton had disrespected the possibility of African American being elected president.

3. President Clinton's reference to Rev. Jesse Jackson: On the morning of the South Carolina primary (not after, as was widely misunderstood), President Clinton said that Rev. Jesse Jackson had won the South Carolina primary in 1988. That was a fact. Everyone knew that Rev. Jackson had won the primary in South Carolina and in other deep south states largely because of substantial support from African American voters, who constituted a large percentage of all primary voters.

Was President Clinton, a supportive husband and shrewd politician, trying to minimize in advance the adverse political impact of the anticipated substantial victory by Senator Obama that night? Of course. Some can legitimately criticize President Clinton's judgment concerning the timing of this comment. I wouldn't be surprised if, in retrospect, President Clinton himself would not agree with that criticism. But it is a huge – and unfair – leap from questioning judgment in defense of his wife to accusing President Clinton of intentionally "playing the race card."

4. Dr. King and LBJ: The most egregious distortion feeding the Big Lie was the criticism of Senator Clinton's factual statement, also in the days leading up to South Carolina primary, crediting President Lyndon Johnson for the enactment of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act in the aftermath of Dr. King's inspiring "I have a dream speech" and the Kennedy assassination. In reaction to that statement, the media did its anti-Clinton distortion thing again. They found African American officials who, already buying into false perception of the Clinton campaign as exploiting race, wrongly accused Senator Clinton of disrespecting Dr. King by her statement.

The irony is that by repeating the bogus "race card" accusation against Senator and President Clinton, African American leaders, egged on by the media’s misreporting, arguably themselves had unwittingly interjected race into the campaign well before the Rev. Wright issue.

An even more malignant manifestation of the Big Lie is the increasingly frequent suggestion that any criticism of Senator Obama must be, by definition, really about his race. An example occurred just this past Saturday in a New York Times op-ed piece. The writer (whose background or bias is not disclosed) declares that "the Clintons pummeled Barack Obama with racially tinged comments," and cites as examples that Senator Clinton had "chastised [Senator Obama's] characterization of white working-class voters as being highfalutin" (the latter being the writer's word, not Senator Clinton's) and had "chided him for not agreeing to a street-fight-style debate" (the writer's term for Senator Clinton's suggestion of a Lincoln-Douglas style debate with no moderator (!)).

But these examples have nothing to do with race. Does it not at least seem to be reverse racism to suggest that any criticisms of Senator Obama having nothing to do with his race necessarily must be about his race?

In the last few weeks, one senior African American congressional leader told newspapers that there are some in the black community who believe that Senator Clinton is motivated to "so weaken Senator Obama that he loses to Senator McCain in 2008 and, thus, allowing her to run again in 2012."

This is sad – not only because this belief is utterly baseless. Worse, it is unfair to Senator Clinton and her husband for African Americans to forget or discount their 40-year history of fighting for civil rights, affirmative action, and economic justice.

In the final analysis, I have confidence that most African Americans, who themselves have been the historical victims of lies and stereotypes, will see through the distortions of the media and appreciate the true facts. When they do, they will once gain remember that record of both Senator and President Clinton and enthusiastically support Senator Clinton if and when she is the Democratic candidate.

Lanny Davis: The Top Ten List of Undisputed Facts Showing Barack Obama's Weakness

david — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:57:39 +0000

Let's forget about the spin on all sides and not use any adjectives to modify the following 10 Facts that should not be in dispute:

1. Hillary Clinton won by 10%, 220,000 votes, despite after most of the polls in the last several weeks on RealClearPolitics, including its RCP all-poll average, showed her ahead by single digits and dropping. The exit polls showed her winning by +5. (It's easy to forget that she won if you listen to the Obama spinners last night and today. Believe it or not, Pennsylvania's Rep. Murphy, a freshman congressman who supported Barack Obama, actually said last night on Larry King that Senator Obama did so well in losing to Senator Clinton yesterday that he has a "wind at his back." I am not kidding.

2. Senator Obama tried hard to win the state, campaigned intensely throughout the state for most of the last six weeks - and was trying to win, not just lose a narrow margin.

3. He spent $11 million on media - about three times more than Senator Clinton.

4. Most of his ads were personal negative attack ads against Senator Clinton, meaning attacks on her character and integrity.

5. There were no personal attack ads run by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania

6. Barack Obama hasn't won a single major industrial state that historically constitute the key "battleground" states for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

7. The reason that he lost can be found in the demographic data: He lost - and Senator Clinton won - by substantial margins blue collar and middle class white voters earning under $50,000 a year, senior citizens, rural voters, Hispanic voters, and women voters - all core constituencies in the Democratic base that must be won if a Democrat is to win the White House. For example, yesterday in Pennsylvania she won Roman Catholics by 32 percent (66034), union households by 18% (59-41), and those most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42). Only 60 percent of Democratic Catholic voters said they would vote for Mr. Obama in a general election.

8. Barack Obama has lost these same demographic groups in Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California and New Jersey and other major states that Senator Clinton won. There is a factual pattern of his weakness among these demographic groups in virtually every primary state that cannot be disputed.

9. Barack Obama is in a statistical dead heat with John McCain in Massachusetts. A recent Survey USA poll of registered voters found 48% backed Senator Obama vs. 46% for Senator McCain - within the margin of error. The same poll showed Senator Clinton with a 15% lead over McCain. The last time a Democrat did not win Massachusetts by a substantial margin was 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. Even in the historic landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972, when he won 49 states, only Massachusetts supported Senator McGovern. Senator Obama currently runs considerably behind Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio, while Senator Clinton is ahead in both of those key battleground states.

10. Current polls show Senator Clinton runs ahead of John McCain nationally or dead even - and Senator Obama runs only dead even. For example, in the most recent USA Today national general election poll, Senator Clinton leads Senator McCain by +6; Senator Obama leads by less than the margin of error, +2.

Those are the facts. To all superdelegates: you decide who is riskier as a general election candidate. The candidate whose negatives, driven by the right-wing hate machine in the 1990s in particular, are all out there and already taken into account. Or a candidate who is still virtually unknown to most of the electorate, with Republicans clearly looking forward to filling in the blanks with the facts about his record, of which many general election voters still are not aware.

Lanny J. Davis
Friend of Senator Hillary Clinton,
and fundraiser for her presidential campaign

Two Questions for the Obama Spin Machine on Pennsylvania Primary Day

david — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:43:29 +0000

Lanny J. Davis
Friend of Senator Hillary Clinton, and fundraiser for her presidential campaign

Two Questions for the Obama Spin Machine on Pennsylvania Primary Day:

1. Why downplay Obama's chances to win Pennsylvania?

2. Why Is Obama is running even (actually losing 48%-46%) in.... get ready.....MASSACHUSETTS (!!!) (Senator Clinton Is Plus 15 Percent Over McCain in Same Poll)

To all readers of my blogs – those who agree, those who don't, even those who just delete:

Please read the two reports below that were posted today, the day if the Pennsylvania primary before the returns are in – one by ABC News reporter and political editor, Jake Tapper; and another by a Boston Herald columnist and radio talk show host Michael Graham.

P.S. The answer to the two questions asked above is – Barack Obama currently shows serious weakness in the general election vs. John McCain in battleground states that Democrats must win to defeat Senator McCain in November (e.g., Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida) as compared to Senator Clinton.

That is a fact.

Thus: These two pieces are MUST READS for all superdelegates who want to defeat John McCain in the general election...and who know that this is not a race to decide student body president but President of the United States.

ABC's Jake Tapper: Why Can't Obama Win Pennsylvania?

Boston Herald's Michael Graham: Fact is Obama's risky; Even Mass. Democrats starting to take notice

Obama and Clinton in a dead heat: Will media analyze why?

barclay360 — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:10:13 +0000

Lanny J. Davis
Friend of Senator Hillary Clinton, and fundraiser for her presidential campaign

The latest Gallup National Democratic Tracking Poll shows a 9 point drop by Senator Barack Obama in about a week. Will the pundits and media analyze why?

Here are the specifics: In the three-day ongoing Gallup Poll of 1,252 Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters, from Thursday-Saturday April 17-19, Senator Obama leads by 47% to 45%. Because that 2-point edge is within the 3% margin of error, it means Hillary Clinton is now in a statistical head heat with Barack Obama.

This represents a dramatic drop by Senator Obama among Democrats and independent leaners of about 9% in less than a week - a drop that Gallup says began just before the recent ABC debate, and that continued and has leveled off as of Saturday.

It's also worth noting that as of Friday night, April 18, the tracking poll showed Senator Clinton with a 1% lead over Senator Obama, 46% to 45% over three days of calling between April 16-18).

This, after Gallup headlined for weeks that Senator Obama had gained a steady lead over Senator Clinton nationally among Democrats and independents-leaners - indeed, Gallup says this is the first time since mid-March that Obama has not been in the lead.

When Obama took a lead of +11% in this same tracking poll as recently as a little over a week ago and maintained it, most print journalists in the mainstream media covering the campaign and certainly every cable TV evening news and pundit show made a big deal and headlined this lead as establishing the Senator Obama had just about wrapped up the nomination. This was not coincidentally accompanied by the Obama campaign spreading that message all over, and stirring its surrogates to call upon Senator Clinton to give it up, even before the Pennsylvania primary.

So now my question and challenge is to the national media covering the campaign, and especially to the cable TV shows - from the Sit Room on CNN to the Persistently and Unashamedly Pro-Obama MSNBC nightly cable TV hosts to the New York Times and other national political reporters: Will you headline the current apparent decline of Barack Obama's national Democratic Party strength and the Hillary Clinton surge within the last week alone - or not?

Sure I am a partisan of Senator Clinton and I can be accused of using the word "decline" and "surge" motivated to help her make the case to super delegates that she is the stronger candidate against John McCain. But forget about my admitted bias (I call it conviction) that Senator Clinton is the far stronger Democratic candidate against Senator McCain.

I ask the pro-Obama cable TV talk show hosts - the most admittedly biased of all, Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball" - will you at least have objective and neutral analysts to analyze what has happened to Barack Obama's standing among Democrats in the last two weeks - and what has happened to Senator Clinton's? A 9-point drop in such a short period of time by Senator Obama - or, from Senator Clinton's perspective, an 11-point gain - in a tracking poll is, by any standard of the polling profession, extremely and unusually large.

It could be an aberration. Senator Obama's slight improvement from Friday night's 3-day results to Saturday night's (from minus 1% to Senator Clinton to +2%) shows that Friday night's calls resulted in his winning that night's calling by a good margin. We will have to wait a few more days to see if Senator Obama resumes his prior substantial lead or whether things have just leveled off between the two. (Other news organizations, for example, such as Newsweek, still have Senator Obama in a substantial double digit lead among Democrats). But the Gallup tracking poll seems to be the most current with the largest total calls and the smallest margin of error.

But it is just possible, just possible, that this is not an aberration. We shall see. It is just possible that those of us who have continually over these many months expressed concerns about Senator Obama's political weakness in the general election, as shown by his inability to win any major industrial state and especially his weakness in the key swing states Democrats must carry to win back the White House, may be right.

And if the latter is the case, this is exactly the reason why Senator Clinton should not allow herself to be pushed out of the race prematurely - and why super delegates should not feel pushed into an artificial deadline to "decide" their vote.

And rather than pushing Senator Clinton out of the race too soon, the grassroots of the party need to be allowed to express its wishes as to who it wants to be the nominee - and superdelegates, whether committed or un-committed, need to keep their eyes on the big prize - winning back the White House. And to do so, they need to watch the results of the remaining primaries, the popular vote totals, the delegate vote totals - and - especially - on the national and state-by-state poll results before making a final decision.

("Tracking" polls are generally regarded as the most reliable of polling techniques to describe trends between two candidates, since the technique is to call about the same random sample of voters every night, adding the last three nights and dropping the prior fourth night. In the highly respected Gallup tracking poll, Gallup is calling 1,000 voters each night, out of which about 400 identify themselves as Democrats or independent-leaning Democratic voters, giving a three day relatively high total of 1,200 Democratic voters (and thus, the small =/- variance of 3%.)

Clinton Consistently Doing Better Than Obama Against McCain vs. Obama in Battleground States

Take a look at the state-by-state results comparing how Senator Clinton is doing against Senator McCain vs. Senator Obama and the results are even scarier. In the national polls, with all the fearsome talk by the Obama campaign about Senator Clinton's "high negatives" and being a "polarizer" the latest Gallup tracking poll, again as of Saturday night, April 19, shows Senator Clinton to be running dead even with Senator McCain - actually plus 1% or 46%-45% - as is Senator Obama (who is dead even at 45%-45%). Gallup points out that the trend has been slightly going against Obama, who had led McCain a week ago by a statistically insignificant +3%.

But at the same time he held that lead, state polls in Florida were showing him losing to Senator McCain by a considerable margin while Senator Clinton was slightly ahead; losing in Ohio by a small margin with Senator Clinton ahead by a small margin; and - this the most shocking and scary of all for Democrats who want to win back the White House - in a virtual dead heat with Senator McCain in the state of Massachusetts! (Senator Clinton, who defeated Senator Obama in the Massachusetts primary by about 15%, despite the endorsements of Senators Kerry and Kennedy and Governor Patrick, as well as Caroline Kennedy, is ahead of Senator McCain in Massachusetts as well).

So what is my theory as to why Senator Obama has dropped so significantly in the last week or two and Senator Clinton has risen? To repeat my caveat: polls are snapshots of a moving picture, and these latest Gallup tracking results could be aberrational. And I could be wrong about my assessment of the reasons for Senator Obama's apparent collapse in the last two weeks if it is a collapse at all.

But here is my current operating theory: I am not sure, but I believe the same uneasiness that I have increasingly felt over these last several weeks about Senator Obama as our party's candidate against Senator McCain has been the case among other Democrats across the nation.

The issues for me are a mix of things, some specific, some intangible: for example, the continuing uneasiness over murky answers by Senator Obama as to why he remained silent for so long in the face of Rev. Wright's hateful sermons; The fact it took Senator Obama so long to understand - if he does even today - why he offended so many rural and cultural conservative voters when he said they were "bitter" over the economy, and thus, the "clinged" to guns and religion and anti-immigration sentiments as a result, rather than holding these views independent of frustration over the economy; And most recently, the Obama campaign's over-reaction and criticism of the ABC moderators' tough questions of Senator Obama in the recent debate, and Senator Obama's (to me at least) apparently flippant and, yes I must use the word, arrogant reaction in referring to it in the days after (at one point he actually accusing Senator Clinton of "twisting the knife") - these and other negative impressions have caused me greater concern about Senator Obama's electability in a contest against Senator McCain.

And, it is just possible, I am not alone, and there are so many other Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents out there feeling the same way as I for many of the same reasons that it might explain Senator Obama's dramatic drop of over 10% in a tracking poll in a little more than a week.

Meanwhile, Senator Clinton remains dignified, virtually unflappable, focused on economic issues and health care, and showing continuing signs of strength in the Democratic Party's core base ever since FDR - blue collar voters, workers, senior citizens, middle class working women. She has come across as human, vulnerable, likeable, and as always, commanding and mature on the issues. Of course, as I readily admit, I am biased: I think she is the best candidate and I think she would make a great president. So feel free to discount those positive impressions.

The Pennsylvania Primary

I don't know whether Senator Obama or Senator Clinton will win Pennsylvania and by what margin. I really don't. I only know that Senator Obama has been outspending Senator Clinton by as much as 2:1 or by some accounts 3:1 or more on TV ads and radio ads.

I don't buy the Obama-campaign-created bar, bought by most of the media and pro-Obama punditry, that Senator Clinton has to win Pennsylvania by double digits. Such a bar doesn't reflect the overpowering reality of being outspent on TV and radio (and much more, presumably, in direct mail and GOTV) by this margin - especially by round-the-clock unanswered negative attack TV and radio ads that the Obama campaign is running, many of them personal attacks on Senator Clinton's character.

In short: I hope Senator Clinton wins, period, by any margin, and will be happy if she does and disappointed if she doesn't. But the big news in Pennsylvania, even if Senator Clinton wins by a single-digit margin, will be in the exit polls demographic data. That is what everyone - especially super delegates who care about winning back the White House - should focus on.

If Senator Obama loses Pennsylvania by whatever margin and, most important, if his demographic base is still the same as before - virtually all African Americans, upper income liberal activist professionals, and college students - then the issue of electability should be even more of concern for Democrats.

No artificial deadline for superdelegates to decide is valid other than when they are convinced they have identified the strongest candidate to run against Senator McCain. (Note to Howard Dean: When I wanted you to be public and forceful in mandating that Senator Obama agree to a "re-vote" by mail and at firehouses in Michigan and Florida - which Senator Clinton ultimately said she would favor - you were disappointingly unwilling. Now for some reason you are insisting that all superdelegates make up their minds immediately after the last primary. I would suggest, respectfully, that you revert to your previous silence and let each superdelegate, in conscience, decide for themselves who can best defeat Senator McCain - and look to the national and state polls as one of the many ingredients of that important and complex decision).

So now we shall see: Will CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the ABC, NBC, and CBS network political correspondents headline the dramatic new Gallup tracking poll showing Senator Obama's dramatic drop? At least to the same extent as they headlined the +9% Obama advantage a little more than a week ago? And, more importantly, will they ask themselves, and their guests, why Senator Obama has apparently gone through such a dramatic political decline (that is, assuming it is not aberrational)? And go out to the grass roots and do some hard reporting to figure this question out, rather than interviewing each other?

And if Senator Obama loses Pennsylvania, will they focus on getting an answer to the question: How can Senator Obama win in the more conservative general electorate if he hasn't been able to win in the more liberal electorate of any major large industrial state in the nation - from Massachusetts to New Jersey to Ohio to California (and, perhaps after Tuesday night, to Pennsylvania)? Why has he lost, despite outspending Senator Clinton to such a degree on TV? Why has he lost these states that Democrats must win to win the presidency?

I may not have the answer right. But now it's time for all the national political media in print and on broadcast and cable TV to start to press for answers - and not be too intimidated by criticism from the pro-Obama blogosphere to ask the tough questions.

Time For A Democratic Peacemaker: Senator George Mitchell

david — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:10:38 +0000

Robert Strauss: Where are you when we need you the most?

The one and only Great Robert Strauss, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee in the 1970s, Clark Clifford in the 1950s and 1960s, emerged as the senior Democratic Party leader and peace maker in the 1980s and 90s, and also, a trusted advisor of both Republican and Democratic presidents.

Now, God bless him, Bob Strauss is in well-deserved semi-retirement and I would guess, respectfully, he is at an age where he wouldn't look forward to mediating as solution to the difficult dilemma faced by the Democratic Party over the Michigan and Florida convention delegates...

Former Senator George J. Mitchell

My proposed Strauss-like leader of the Democrats who can pull that off: Former Maine Senator and Democratic Majority Leader George Mitchell.

Senator Mitchell, as we all know, was centrally responsible for bringing peace to the warring factions in Northern Island. He was the trusted investigator of steroids in major league baseball. He is also a savvy politician whose years as Majority Leader taught him the wisdom of the need to make a choice between two unhappy alternatives if the absence of any deal is far worse.

The current dilemma involving Florida and Michigan in the Democratic presidential race fits that very dilemma.

On the one hand, the Clinton campaign and many others believe that the Michigan 700,000 Democratic primary voters and the 1.5 million who voted in Florida in January should not be disenfranchised, even if they violated the DNC calendar rules that everyone agreed ahead-of-time should be enforced.

On the other hand, the Obama campaign and many others believe that rules should be followed before the game is played, and not changed in the middle of the game, much less those who violated them rewarded. They favor a 50-50 split seating all the delegates – but Clinton campaign supporters and most Florida and Michigan Democrats would still see this as disenfranchising voters.

One thing everyone agrees on: Democrats cannot afford to alienate Florida and Michigan voters and possibly lose the White House in 2008 as a result.

So what to do? Enters Senator George Mitchell.

He is neutral in the Clinton-Obama race. He is highly respected. He is senior (though he has young children and shows no sign of losing any energy and vitality). And most of all, as just noted, he understands politics and the need for a better alternative among two even worse alternatives.

There is some re-vote solution out there that constitutes that alternative. A mail-in ballot, a "firehouse" primary (where voters go to various firehouses or public libraries to vote, rather than a voting machine in every precinct), or some combination. Yes, the verification process for mail ballots will be a challenge – though not too much different than handling millions of absentee ballots as has been the case in Florida and Michigan for years. Yes, the "fire houses" or libraries, etc., must be numerous and located strategically to make it relatively easy for those who did not receive a mailed ballot to vote. Provisions for transportation of voters who need it to get to the fire houses would not be all that complicated to work out.

Yes, it could cost $10-$20 million or more for the Michigan and Florida state Democratic parties to pay for all this – since taxpayers could not be expected to foot the bill.

But if George Mitchell could get Northern Ireland protestants and Catholics to make peace and craft a complicated solution for coalition governing, he should be able to get the Obama and Clinton campaigns to solve all of the above problems, especially raising the money. If both campaigns posted a special solicitation on their websites to all their donors, most of that money could be raised from small donations in days if not a couple of weeks.

So to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton: How about making a joint call to Senator Mitchell and invite him to "bring us together" and remind him: "Blessed be the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the earth."

- Lanny J. Davis, former Clinton Lawyer

Editor's Note: Lanny J. Davis, a Washington attorney, is a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and has many friends and family members who support Senator Barack Obama.