This is truly bizarre pair of quotations from geraldine ferraro and jesse jackson jr in a year old article by Ad Nags, both agreeing in speculation about 2008 that it will be harder for
an African-American to become president than for a woman:
"All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male - for reasons of our cultural heritage," said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, "It's easier - emphatically so."
Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. "I think it's more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American," said Ms. Ferraro. "There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States - whether it's conscious or not it's true."
"Women are 51 percent of the population," she added.
I guess it's possible she was just saying this to be polite because she is a clintonista and assumed that hillary was a shoe in. I really don't know what to think right now, her comments this week have put me on the brink of not being willing to vote for hillary in the general, much less the primary. My best guess is that she is just a loyal attack dog willing to do whatever it takes for her candidate. This addition of self-contradiction on top of her blatant race-baiting is just making me feel too cynical...
Barack Obama has now cut the gap with Hillary Clinton to 6 percentage points among Democrats nationally in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking three-day average, and interviewing conducted Tuesday night shows the gap between the two candidates is within a few points. Obama's position has been strengthening on a day-by-day basis. As recently as Jan. 18-20, Clinton led Obama by 20 points. Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking is based on interviews conducted Jan. 27-29, all after Obama's overwhelming victory in South Carolina on Saturday. Two out of the three nights interviewing were conducted after the high-visibility endorsement of Obama by Sen. Edward Kennedy and his niece Caroline Kennedy.
Clinton's lead in the three-day average is now 42% to Obama's 36%. John Edwards, who dropped out of the race Wednesday after Gallup conducted these interviews, ended his quest for the presidency with 12% support. Wednesday night's interviewing will reflect the distribution of the vote choice of former Edwards' supporters as well as the impact, if any, of Hillary Clinton's popular vote win in Florida on Tuesday.
The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Connecticut's Democratic Presidential Primary shows the race couldn't possibly get any closer. New York Senator Hillary Clinton attracts 40% of the vote and so does Illinois Senator Barack Obama. John Edwards is a very distant third at 11% while 3% say they'd vote for some other candidate and 6% are not sure.
On the Democratic side, the combined results of three nightly samplings of 400 different voters - for Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday - found Hillary Rodham Clinton at 36 percent, Obama at 31 percent and John Edwards at 12 percent.
But when taken alone, Sunday's tracking - just a day after Obama's big win in the South Carolina primary - had Obama leading Clinton, 35 percent to 32 percent, with Edwards' share growing to 16 percent. And pretty much the same numbers came up Monday.
Survey USA, the other organization to poll California after South Carolina, shows Clinton ahead by 8% among likely voters, but with a gaping 24% advantage among those who has already voted.
Overall, there does seem to be movement toward Obama, which is good news for his campaign when it comes to securing Edwards supporters. However, the evidence is both a little spotty and a little thin. Further, Clinton can still rely on a large advantage among early voters, and bounces almost always fade. Tomorrow's polling, which will be the first after Florida, and after Edwards has dropped out, will provide significant insight.
I don't think that it surprised anyone that Hilary Clinton decided to go negative now that it looks like her position as front runner is threatened. Indeed I don't think that very many of us are surprised that she went very negative when she decided it was time to go negative. What really surprised me is that she did such a poor job of it.
For months now she has been telling us that she is the only one who knows how to fight toe-to-toe when the Republicans attack, and she assured us that she was ready. When she attacked a fellow Democrat, I expected her to show us this vaunted ability to really drive the hit home. The Clinton campaign has taken their swing at Barack Obama and to our collective astonishment, she missed.
I have voiced my concerns about a Hilary nomination before, but an LA times story illustrates very clearly one of my points. The strategic worry that Hilary Clinton is very divisive character in American politics, and that should she win our nomination she would energize the republican base. That division would lead once again to another razor thin election which hinges on one or two states, and her coattails wouldn't take our down ticket candidates very far.
That concern it seems is shared by highly placed democrats around the country:
The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.
A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.
A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.
"The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."
"Republicans are upset with their candidates," Arnold added, "but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls."
