April 23rd, 2008
06:33 AM ET

Morning Buzz

Morning folks.... Well, the race goes on.....Hillary Clinton is the WINNER of the Pennsylvania Primary. With 99% of the vote counted, Hillary Clinton has 55% of the vote and Barack Obama 45%.... Is this a major turning point in the race for the Democratic nomination? Why can't Obama "close the deal?" Here is a quick read from papers across the country of last night's Clinton VICTORY....

NY Times: With Clear Victory, She Has Rationale to Fight On...Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton scored a decisive victory over Senator Barack Obama on Tuesday in the Pennsylvania primary, giving her candidacy a critical boost...

Politico.com: Obama Can't Shake Off Clinton...Barack Obama could not “close the deal” in Pennsylvania on Tuesday night...

Washington Post: Obama's Gloves Are Off - And May Need to Stay Off....Unable once again to score a knockout, Sen. Barack Obama is likely to make his new negative tone even more negative....

Washington Post: Decisive Win Can't Forestall A Daunting Task....Pennsylvania Democrats threw a much-needed lifeline to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton last night...

Wall Street Journal: Delegate-Allocation Rules Mean Vote May Have Minimal Impact...Pennsylvania's 187 convention delegates are the largest remaining lode in the primary season, dwarfing the 134 delegates in North Carolina and 83 in Indiana, states...

Pittsburg Post-Gazette: Obama Shifts Quickly To Indiana, Next Battleground...Just hours after his defeat in the Pennsylvania primary

Washington Post: Signs Indicate That Duels May Be Hurting Party....With Democratic voters falling into generally predictable patterns, there are signs in the Pennsylvania exit poll that the prolonged battle for the Democratic nomination may have negative consequences for the party.

Tonight on AC360...we will have ALL the post-primary analysis and we will look down the road to the next battleground...North Carolina and Indiana on May 6...The fight rages on....

Filed under: The Buzz
soundoff (28 Responses)
  1. Scott Hall

    Looking at the Republican side last night is very interesting and has implications on the Democrat race. A very large percentage of Republicans are still not on McCains bandwagon. Look at Ron Paul's numbers. I have to imagine that if this would have been an open primary, many of those 128,000 votes for Ron Paul would have been cast for Barack Obama. I also imagine that these folks may be Obamacans in the general election.

    April 23, 2008 at 9:59 am |
  2. Scott Hall

    Why is the question, "Why Can't Obama Close the Deal?"? Shouldn't it be why can't Hillary blow Obama out of the water when from the beginning she had such high name recognition, she had the Democratic establishment behind her, she had the big money behind her, etc. The fact that Obama has pulled out to a lead in the contest is still the big story of the year.

    April 23, 2008 at 9:56 am |
  3. Claudia

    Neither Clinton or Obama can win the White House, too much damage has been done to the democrat party.

    April 23, 2008 at 9:54 am |
  4. Steve

    We have been hearing this junk for months. Because Hillary Clinton decides to stay in the race it's all over for the Democratic party. How outrageous can the media get. She has fought hard without the help of the media, Republican party or blacks. Obama was calling for her to get out even before the Texas primaries. Last I heard America is still a Democracy. It's also interesting the media never mentions all the Republicans that switched parties so they could vote against Hillary in the primaries. These same Republicans have no intention of voting for Obama in the general election. Without the Republican votes Obama doesn't have a chance in h#$l% of winning the general election. Use your head and look at the Republican states that Obama carried...states that have never voted Democratic and never will, that is where Obama got most of his delegates. All will vanish in Nov and revert back to Republicans.

    There are thousands of Democrats (believe it or not) that will put country before party and vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. McCain is the lesser of two evils. Obama is too inexperienced and much too weak to stand up to world leaders, he would fold if anyone said boo to him. He is under complete control by the old Democratic Washington insiders, heck all of them came out early and endorsed him, what does that tell you? The old buddy system in Washington know darn well they would have a hard time controlling Hillary that is why they all rushed to Obama's side.

    April 23, 2008 at 9:47 am |
  5. Pamela Brodie

    Last night a comment was made that people didn't understand why Ms. Clinton is so popular with older catholic females. It's simple. The OCF have not forgotten the Monica Lewinsky situation and can identify with it. Hillary did not pack her bags and leave. She kept her family intact and bounced back. Women know how much strength that required and they respect her for it. She's a gutsy lady.

    Regarding Barack Obama, I believe that the reason he isn't bonding well with the blue collar voters is that he doesn't speak their language. His speeches are too long, too convoluted, and you need a dictionary to understand him.

    It is also no mystery to me why he raised more funds. After contacting both parties, I immediately received an email from Mr. Obama's fundraising department, asking for a donation. I did not receive one from Ms. Clinton. Ask and you will receive.

    Regarding the recurring comment of having a black president. I don't see the relevance at all. There are plenty of black leaders in the United States who I would vote for, rather than Mr. Obama. When the race card is played, it's petty and a negative reflection of the character of the person who is playing it.

    It worries me very much that these two candidates can't get along without sniping. If you can't have a sophisticated campaign between two potential presidents, what hope is there for their future behavior in the White House?

    April 23, 2008 at 9:41 am |
  6. Debbie, NJ

    We always knew Clinton would win PA. Obama's money brought the lead down to 10% versus the 25% he had going in. We are still where
    we were. If Clinton wins the nomination, for whatever reason, the new voters, young voters, most African Americans, and single moms will not vote for her. They will either vote for McCain or stay home. ANd this is a fact.

    April 23, 2008 at 9:40 am |
  7. Bill from Rochester, NY

    Last night, as Hillary was taking her bows about "winning" in Penn, I had to wonder, when she refers to "we're winning or we're closing the gap" is she referring to herself and her election committee or is she referring to herself and Bill. I find it hard to believe that Bill is going to be a support background singer for the star if Hillary is elected. I think we'll have a Co-Presidency and a seperate VP. By the way, I'm not sure you can consider Hillary as winning PA. The gap closed very quickly on her in two weeks time, from leading by over 20 point to "winning" by about 6 points. As far as the "knock out" by Barack. I expect that to come in two weeks when he wins the next two states on May 6th, then he'll have momentum and finish her off. No way should there be any thought of a so called "dream team". That would be disaster. Can you image Barack listening to Hillary and Bill all the time?

    April 23, 2008 at 9:33 am |
  8. Diane Gout

    I guess I'm a little confused. People are trying to assert that Obama can't win a general election yet he has the most number of popular votes, delegate votes and state wins. I find it hard to imagine that should he continue to keep this lead, come November, Democrats in this country would cut their noses off to spite their faces by NOT voting for him. It only makes sense that some voting constituancies would choose her over him but really.....in November, they would choose McCain over Obama? That's just insanity.

    If the senior, white and blue collar workers choose not to vote for him in the general election, they should take a long, hard look inside themselves and ask why?

    What I do know is that IF the "Super" delegates overturn a decision that the voters have made regardless of the reason, that is when you will see REAL party division. I'm not sure why this issue isn't being discussed more. If this happens, essentially, the American people who have been voting and contributing in this election are being told that they are either ignorant or stupid and that "others" need to make a decision for us.

    I have spoken to alot of people, both Hillary and Obama supporters and THAT action would do nothing more than create disallusionment, frustration, anger, and a reason for democratic voters to STAY HOME come election day in November! If this is democracy, then why bother with all of this nonsense at all? If the American people are truly too unaware to make a decision about who they want to see representing them, then the all-knowing, all-powerful "Super" delegates should just make the decision from the beginning. In a time when families are worrying about their homes, gas prices, food, etc. and who have chosen to engage in this process in record numbers and perhaps scrape together funds to support their candidate; overturning a decision would amount to money thrown out the door that could have been spent on a new pair of shoes for their child, a medical bill, or gas for the car.

    Since when did it begin to matter "who" was more electable? And since when did this decision rest in the hands of anyone BUT the American people? Aren't people still outraged over the fact that Bush stole the election from Gore! That would be happening again, only it would be Hillary that was stealing it from Obama should he continue to win. Instead of the Supreme Court making the decision, she is working diligently to position the "Super" delegates to do so.

    I am greatly in support of the Democrats being seated back in the White House come November, but to what expense. I'm certainly NOT okay with the process that Hillary is campaigning for. It undermines the American people and this is a time when is has become critical to mobilize Americans to take charge of their lives, speak up and be heard. WHY in the world would ANYONE attempt to silence the voices that are speaking by essentially telling them they don't know what they are talking about?!

    April 23, 2008 at 9:30 am |
  9. Cyrus

    At this point in time, the clinton team is breaking the party in two. I have supported Obama for president as I think change is needed for the future.

    Obama has captured young voters and the independents.

    My voting issues are as follows:
    1. the next generation of americans need a leader
    2. my financial future
    3. my rights to bear arms

    Obama carries my most important concern and if he is the nominee I will vote for change, to improve our standing in the world. I must vote republican if Hilary is the democratic nominee, she is not a future leader, she is more of the same, at least John M. has some integrity.

    April 23, 2008 at 9:24 am |
  10. Mike in NYC

    PA was like a big OH, with similar victory margins.

    Sure, BO will maintain his lead in delegates, states, and popular vote. But his glaring demographic weaknesses will persist.

    April 23, 2008 at 9:21 am |
  11. Terrence Lenahan

    Senator Clinton won in PA, but NOT by double digits, as some have
    asserted. Doing the arithmetic shows the spread at 9.39%. Rounding
    to the nearest integer, it is 9%, not the double digit 10%.

    April 23, 2008 at 9:17 am |
  12. joanne in ontario

    Obama went into Pennsylvania knowing he was not going to win, all he wanted to do was bring Hillary's numbers down and he was successful. Obama is way ahead in delegate numbers and I feel very confident that the super delegates will go Barack's way. I think the perfect team would be JOHN EDWARDS as VP and BARACK OBAMA as President.

    April 23, 2008 at 9:04 am |
  13. David

    You know the sad thing about his election is we bring the worst out of people to where we can't put things behind us and work together as one. There is too much jealously and racism in this world to unite us. I am hoping that the media would some day focus upon something good about these candidates. How about getting excited about changing this Country, government as we know it. Maybe if we stop the negative comments these candidates will stop charging at each other. One message to Hillary Clinton should be if Obama is so bad for this country why is she so upset with the fact that he is running a better campagn from all perspectives? Maybe she needs to listen to what Americans are staying. The sad thing is that I believe when the national election comes that the Republicans will expose all the dirty laundry of the Clinton's. Lets make a change. Please somebody air a broadcast that is positive on this election.

    April 23, 2008 at 9:01 am |
  14. Dahlia-Texas

    AC, I am surprised at you. You are spreading the mess just like the rest of them. Obama doesn't have to close the deal! HRC was so far ahead in PA he did a great job to come within 8%. The main questions is what Roland Martin said last night, "Why hasn't the front runner from the very beginning, HRC, been able to knock out this noboby?" This nobody has been kicking her butt up and down, from left to right and all around this country.

    Obama all the way!

    April 23, 2008 at 9:00 am |
  15. Karine Weil

    I wonder if Obama would be ahead if the states used the same formula to award votes as they do in a general election using the electoral votes. I think that Florida and Michigan must be counted to make this campaign fair. If Obama can't get the large states now, he won't get them in November and I think the democratic party needs to seriously consider this.

    April 23, 2008 at 8:55 am |
  16. Brian Moore

    PA clearly favors Clinton over Obama thats a fact. PA does not favor McCain over Obama thats a fact. Polls in PA have Obama and Clinton leading McCain.

    My question to all pundits who spin the Clinton "Big State" theory: How is democrat vs democrat in a democratic state that will still vote for a democrat meaningful to the superdelegates?

    How many delegates did Clinton net in PA? The reality is she netted less delegates in PA than Obama did in Minnesota.

    April 23, 2008 at 8:48 am |
  17. Lester Rowell

    I think that the press is overwhelmingly supporting Obama by the way it presents him day after day and hour after hour when any controversy such as his defense of Rev. Wright comes up. It gives him much more free coverage and Hillary Clinton is ignored, then when she is finally asked about what she would do if she were in the same situation and she answers, her answer is attacked by some people saying that she brought it up, when in fact a reporter specifically asked her what she would do.

    April 23, 2008 at 8:47 am |
  18. Bob from Maryland

    I believe CNN provides good and balanced reporting and commentary. However, the commentators and analyst may be listening to much to the campaign spin doctors, rather than doing their own independent analysis.

    The issue is not whether the eventual Democratic nominee will be able to consolidate the core Democratic base behind his or her candidacy, as Clinton has framed the argument. The more important issue that should be discussed is which candidate can best attract the independent voters in the general election. It is the independent voters who more than likely will determined who the next President will be in the general election.

    The super delegates should be assessing the strength of each candidate among independent voters and not who can hold onto the core base of the Democratic Party. Senator John McCain is a very viable contender who has demonstrated his appeal among independent voters.

    Furthermore, the increasing negativity arising out of the Democratic primary contest is not only polarizing the Democratic party into two camps (i.e. Clinton v. Obama), but it is also increasingly alienating independent voters from supporting the eventual Democratic nominee.

    I would like to see some analysis and commentary on your program this evening that explores the issue of the importance of attracting independent voters in the general election as it pertains to the viability of the eventual Democratic presidential nominee.

    April 23, 2008 at 8:41 am |
  19. k.e.chenoweth

    Each canidate gets to throw out two states. Obama threw out MI and Fl. What two states should Hillary throw out?

    April 23, 2008 at 8:40 am |
  20. jackie

    No. I do see, however, the news pundits, CNN included doing the same thing as they did to Edwards try to ease the popular vote by suggesting he is not strong whereas before there was at least a fair discussion. Is someone paying the news pundits. Besides Jack and Keith Olbermann of msnbc, and Wolf to an extent, you are pushing for a Clinton win. If I told you that were she to win, there would be a war you cannot stop then who is responsible. Let the votes fall where they may and stop interfering. The Bible code states that B. O will be a very steadfast candidate and truthful. Do you really want to take that away from the American people. Let them decide not you and your points of view. Get over it CNN and others like you.

    April 23, 2008 at 8:14 am |
  21. LewisNGeorgia

    Obama, stay on target moving this country more towards resolutions rather than division. It's not that it's too hot in the kitchen, thanks for chosing to put out the fire rather than deal with the smoke. The people of the USA are ready and willing to help move this country back to a place of "Hope & Prosperity" for themselves and in the eyes of the world !

    April 23, 2008 at 8:03 am |
  22. Jeff Brechbuhl

    I'm surprised that there isn't more talk about the Florida and Michigan factor in regard to Clinton's ability to become elected. With the delegates from those two states, she'd be a lot closer to Obama's number of delegates. I think the Democratic Party will make a huge mistake if they nominate Obama without considering these two states.

    April 23, 2008 at 7:40 am |
  23. Kim P. Atlanta, GA

    You ask why can't he close the deal? Well here is why. He is a black man. He is a black man. How many times does it have to be said. He has won more states, won more pledged delegates, gaining superdelegates everyday, has more money that either candidates (could loan both of them money and still be ahead), has increased the number of democratic registered voters since Kennedy, has won the popular vote, need I go on...If this was a white male in this race making these times of accomplishments in this campaign, we would be asking; Hillary who? The "blue collar, lunch box" folks of Pennsylvania and Ohio understand this. This is why they voted for Hillary Clinton. So to your question on why he can't close the deal? He is a black man!

    April 23, 2008 at 7:34 am |
  24. Kim

    I just read a comment from the New York Times that presented the following hypothesis:

    The Obama campaign always knew that there was no realistic way to catch up with Clinton in Pennsylvania. The real reason why he poured so much money and effort into the stae was their strategy to force Clinton to keep up with his pace and spending to drain her already meager resources.

    It's a fact that she'll have a hard time financing the remaining contests, unless donors start flocking to her after the Pa. win last night.

    So I thought it was an interesting theory... What do you think?

    April 23, 2008 at 7:25 am |
  25. GC in Tx

    Nobody is buying this 'why can't he close the deal' positioning by Republican non-objective news commentators. Repeating is over and over is very annoying and insulting to many. He is the underdog that had to overcome an entrenched political dynasty. Let's not mention the cozy relationship between the Clintons and Bushes. He is doing phenomenal considering his continued position in 1st place. His widespread financial support indicates more of a real committment to his candidacy than he is given credit for.

    April 23, 2008 at 7:20 am |
  26. Dorsie

    I am an Independant voter in Missouri who would like to have a due over here, since we are just now finding out about the true Obama.
    Go on, Hillary,maybe we can find out the truth about Obama inspite of his great communication skill.

    April 23, 2008 at 7:18 am |
  27. Laura Porter

    Working in an office full of "political spin women" and listening to all the Hoopla about Senator Clinton's "double digit" win, it is interesting to note that the unreported 1% could certainly change that headline. By my mathematical calculations of the reported 99%.... Senator Clinton had 54.7% of the vote, with Senator Obama at 45.3%.
    Hmmm... sounds like "single digit" .4% to me!

    April 23, 2008 at 7:17 am |
  28. GC in Tx

    Please explain to me how exit polls in Pennsylvania is representative of the rest of America? Voting intentions of voters in PA if they do not get their 1st choice does not represent all of America. PA is not TX, is not GA, etc. Most democrats do not want another term with Republicans at all. They will vote for the Democratic nominee period. Long term however, it matters what kind of campaign they run. It will impact their effectiveness in Washington.

    April 23, 2008 at 7:15 am |