OverClinton.com

On May 8, 2008 Hillary Clinton told USA Today that white voters "were supporting me," and claimed to have "a broader base to build a winning coalition on." Clinton referred without citation to an Associated Press report that she said showed Obama's support from white voters shrinking. Clinton's remarks received considerable coverage on cable news and in the blogosphere, with some commentators questioning the racial overtones of her assertions.

Clinton was apparently referring to a May 3 article by Alan Fram that examined AP/Yahoo News polls from November and April, as well as primary exit polls including those from Pennsylvania. The polling showed that white primary voters without college degrees favored Clinton by 20 percent or more. In Pennsylvania, 20 percent of those voters said that race had played a role in their choice of candidate, and of those, 80 percent voted for Hillary.

Speaking to the Washington Post Emory University's Andra Gillespie observed that an election with the first black candidate having a "legitimate shot at the nomination ... was going to reveal these cleavages."

In an interview for National Journal On Air, congressional Marjority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina disputed the validity of Clinton's claim:

I don't think that carries any more weight than anyone who will argue that the fact that she only got 8 percent of the African-American vote in North Carolina indicates that she cannot get African-American votes in the general election. It's one thing for us to measure these two Democratic candidates against each other. It is totally something else again for us to measure a Democratic candidate against a Republican candidate. Those are two different things -- apples and oranges -- and I do believe it is a stretch for us to consider otherwise. If we buy into that, and we buy into the conventional wisdom that no Democrat wins the presidency getting only 8 percent of the African-American vote, then what does that to say for her prospects in the fall?

Despite her public posture, several Clinton advisers told the NY Times that "how long she would stay in the race was an open question." And "top Clinton fund-raisers said that the campaign was all but over and suggested that she was simply buying time on Wednesday to determine if she could raise enough money" and win over superdelegates.

Another Clinton adviser told the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza "I believe there is no path to victory. I also believe she wants to see a Democrat win in November and she will do the right thing."

In her continuing impersonation of a Republican, Hillary Clinton has adopted two perennial Republican tactics: pandering, and calling for tax cuts.

Clinton and McCain have proposed suspending the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax during the summer. The tax funds the Highway Trust Fund used to maintain highways and bridges. Economists noted that, because refineries can't increase their capacity in the space of a few months, suspending the tax would increase demand, benefiting oil companies not consumers.

Today Indianapolis native and superdelegate Joe Andrew, who had been appointed chairman of the Democratic National Committee by Bill Clinton, switched his endorsement from Hillary to Obama. In his announcement he suggested Hillary's campaign was harmful to the Democratic party:

I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it's now bad for the Democratic Party.... [A] vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain.

The new Hillary babble phrase is apparently "the tide is turning." Yet despite her single digit win in PA -- yes, it's officially 9.2% as of 11am EST -- she still trails in pledged delegates, money, and votes.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder speculates that the narrow Clinton victory in PA may spur more superdelegates to declare for Obama. Perhaps proving his point, the Daily Oklahoman reported that Gov. Brad Henry, "who said earlier he would not endorse a Democratic presidential candidate until this summer's national convention, announced this morning he is supporting Barack Obama."

The progressive think tank, The Rockridge Institute, which unfortunately announced this week that it will close, has an excellent debunking of "electability" that we reproduce below in its entirety. (See also our Debunking the Big State Myth.)

Ask Rockridge: Who the Hell Knows Today Who Will Be Electable in November?
Created by bruce_at_rockridge (Rockridge Institute staff member) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 05:38 PM

The perception of electability rests on a witch's brew of fact, impression, media-promoted narratives, and stargazing.

We recently received this question:

"I would enjoy an in-depth discussion, but what I'm really looking for is an effective single sentence counterframe to: 'Candidate X is a great guy/gal but s/he is just not electable.'"

The suggestion that a particular candidate is not electable could mean several things. One meaning might be that the candidate is "too liberal" and that to be electable a candidate must be a moderate or centrist. We have written in Thinking Points about what we call the "label myth." This myth is based on the popular but mistaken metaphorical understanding of a linear order of political worldviews, about which we have also written here and here. It suggests that each of our sets of political views places us somewhere along this right-to-left linear scale. Further, politicians, pundits and the media have all contributed to the idea that the center, where the "moderates" lie, is the reasonable or balanced point of view and it is where a candidate's positions must fall in order to be electable. We reject this idea.

In an apparent continuing exegesis of "what the meaning of is is," Bill Clinton told WHYY radio's Susan Phillips that the Obama campaign had "played the race card" against him after Clinton compared Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson after Obama won the South Carolina primary, and then denied saying it. The next day an NBC/NJ reporter asked Clinton what he meant by the remark, to which Clinton responded:

That’s not what I said. You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today. This is a day about election day. Go back and see what the question was, and what my answer was. You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your game today.

The most recent USA Today/Gallup poll finds Barack Obama with a 10 percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton nationally, 50% to 40%. That's up 3 percent from last month. Key findings:

Efforts by Clinton and John McCain ... to characterize Obama as elitist for his remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser seem to have failed. Seven of 10 say Obama "respects working-class Americans" rather than looks down on them — a slightly more positive reading than that for McCain or Clinton.

The New Republic has a detailed account of the continuing turmoil among Clinton campaign staff and advisers.

The article's conclusion:
... the campaign continues to suffer regular defections, as exhausted, dispirited staffers take their leave. In addition to high-profile resignations by deputy campaign manager Mike Henry and director of operations Jessica O'Connell, lesser-known hands have been trickling out as well. Recent departures included Carolyn Hahn, director of correspondence; Sasha Bruce, Jason Houser, and Alea Brown from Guy Cecil's political shop; Crystal Patterson and Kevin Thurman from the Web team; and Hailey Arends, Matt McQueeney, and Lauren Fitterman from Compliance and Accounting. As they head out the door, refugees say they're fielding numerous calls from other folks thinking of following them....