Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

It is the last weekend before the Pennsylvania primary. Most of the polling has been completed and now all that remains is for the Democrats in Pennsylvania to make their preferences known. In the last month and a half, Barack Obama has shrunk what appeared to be a 20 point Hillary Clinton advantage to about 5 points, according to the latest poll of polls at Pollster.com. According to Pollster, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 47.4% to 42.3% with 10.3% undecided. Because of the large number of undecideds among voters whose demographic favors Clinton, many are saying that this could result in a double digit Clinton win in Pennsylvania. If the results indeed show a double digit Clinton win it would conform to what has been long expected in Pennsylvania. However, my sense is that the results will be much closer.

My prediction for Tuesday is that Hillary Clinton will win 52.8% to 47.2%, approximately a 6 point victory over Barack Obama.

When reading polls this late, the conventional wisdom is that late deciders break for the candidate who is ahead – Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania. A look at the polls before the Ohio and Texas primaries seem to confirm this observation. In both cases, Hillary Clinton received a higher percentage of the vote than what the final polls indicated. It appeared that those shown as undecided in the polls went toward Clinton. However, a more likely explanation is that those undecided in a primary within a day of the primary are likely to just stay home. A closer look at the polling and the results support that conclusion and offer some clues as to what we might see in Pennsylvania.

Currently in Pennsylvania Hillary Clinton garners 47.4% to Barack Obama’s 42.3% and 10.3% show as uncommitted in the polls. The decideds amount to 89.7% of those polled. If only those who appear as decided vote on Tuesday one would expect Hillary Clinton to get 52.8% (47.4 divided by 89.7) and Obama to get 47.2%. I posit that this is the most likely outcome as the undecideds this late in the game are likely not motivated enough to get to the polls. Undecideds are not the same as late deciders that will show up in the exit polls. The late deciders are already likely factored into the polls this close to the primary. Just for comparison, if we were to give all of the "undecideds" to Clinton (as the conventional wisdom suggests) the outcome in Pennsylvania would be Clinton 57.7% and Obama 42.3%. That outcome is highly unlikely, but you can consider that to be Hillary Clinton’s top-line number.

Now, let us look at the numbers in Ohio and Texas. Hillary Clinton won Ohio 54% to 44%. The final polls in Ohio before the primary had Clinton winning 49.6% to 43.6% with 6.8% undecided. The decideds amounted to 93.2% of those polled. By our calculations Clinton would have won Ohio 53.2% to 46.8%. If the undecideds had moved into Clinton’s column, she would have won 56.4% to 43.6%. As it turns out the results are very close to our prediction that assumed the "undecideds" stayed home.

In Texas, Hillary Clinton won 51% to 47%. The final polls in Texas before the primary had Clinton winning 47.8% to 45.9% with 6.3% undecided. The decideds amounted to 93.7% of those polled. By our calculations Clinton would have won Texas 51% to 49%. If the undecideds had moved into Clinton’s column, she would have won 54.1% to 45.9%. Once again the results were very close to our prediction that assumed "undecideds" stayed home.

You will notice that in both Ohio and Texas Obama underperformed the predictions by about 2%. The 2% went to "other". A similar percentage in Pennsylvania may go to "other" giving Clinton a 52.8% to 45.2% win. That would give Clinton a 8% margin of victory.

How the final numbers ultimately turn out will depend a lot on the get-out-the-vote efforts of each campaign. But the numbers suggest a likely 6 point Clinton victory and maybe a margin as high as 8 points. With this kind of a margin, out of Pennsylvania’s 158 delegates Clinton is likely to get at best 84 delegates to Obama’s 74 delegates – a net gain of 10 delegates. In reality, because of Obama strongholds in delegate rich areas of the state Clinton’s net delegate gain is likely to be smaller. When all is said and done, Hillary Clinton will likely come out of Pennsylvania – her last best state – without winning anything close to enough delegates to cut into Barack Obama’s insurmountable delegate lead of 163. For all the sound and fury surrounding Pennsylvania, this "neck and neck" race has been lost since February. Hillary Clinton hopes to keep up the illusion of this "neck and neck" race by a double digit win in Pennsylvania. However, if the polls hold and the voters do their part the illusion will have died in Pennsylvania.

The Hillary Clinton campaign is very worried about what the right-wing noise machine will do to Barack Obama should he become the Democratic nominee. So, in a friendly show of Democratic solidarity, the Clinton campaign has been digging up and throwing all the right-wing talking points it can find at Barack Obama. The Clinton campaign says that they are doing this now so Obama will be ready for the Republicans in November. The Clinton campaign is so committed to helping out the likely Democratic nominee that they have even prepared a three-page essay containing right-wing attacks on Barack Obama. I thank the Clinton campaign for such foresight and for their due diligence. I have no doubt they are committed to getting Barack Obama elected in November.

Sadly, there is very little chance that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Short of a nomination stolen by the super delegates, Hillary Clinton has no chance. However, in the event that the super delegates hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton, it is imperative that those of us who want a Democratic victory in November do what we can to dig up all the right-wing talking points against Hillary Clinton now so that she will be prepared when the general election comes. All Democrats, including MoveOn.org (a group that Hillary Clinton remains grateful to for bailing out her husband), should help vet the former First Lady in the event of a stolen nomination.

We all know what the usual attacks will be on Mrs. Clinton. There is no need to repeat them here. What we must do is vet her against attacks such as this one that the McCain camp is making against Senator Obama.

I take no joy in typing up right-wing talking points. But I consider it my duty as a voter to help Mrs. Clinton should she be the nominee.

One issue that Mrs. Clinton feels is relevant is who a politician associates with. She made it abundantly clear at the debate this week that no matter how tenuous the association, a candidate must be held accountable for the words or actions of these associates. I fear that this position that Mrs. Clinton has taken may come back to hurt her in November. The Republicans will surely bring up Abdurahman Alamoudi in connection with any Clinton general election campaign. Hillary Clinton should be prepared to defend this association.

Abdurahman Alamoudi was the founder of the American Muslim Council. He was charged with laundering money from Libya and of providing money to al Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist organizations. He was convicted in 2004 and sentenced to 23 years in prison. It turns out Mr. Alamoudi was also involved in an assassination plot. Unfortunately it turns out that Mr. Alamoudi and his organization, the American Muslim Council, had raised money for both George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton.

The American Muslim Council and an associated group held a fundraiser in 2000 where they raised $50,000 for Hillary Clinton. Mr. Alamoudi also separately contributed $1000 to Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaign. When the news of this fundraiser and contribution surfaced Hillary Clinton was forced to return the money:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday that she would return $50,000 in political contributions received at a fund-raising event sponsored by a Muslim organization based in California.

Mrs. Clinton said she was offended by remarks attributed to members of the organization, the American Muslim Alliance. The group’s president has been quoted as defending a United Nations resolution that he said allowed for the use of armed force by Palestinians against Israel, while other members have been accused of making anti-Semitic remarks.

Mrs. Clinton’s decision to return the money, as well as $1,000 from an official of another American Muslim group, the American Muslim Council, puzzled leaders of both Muslim organizations. The groups acknowledge that they have some members with extreme views on Israel, but say that they are mainstream and oppose terrorism. Officials in the groups yesterday took issue with the characterizations of the remarks.

Hillary Clinton tried to distance herself from the fundraiser but it turned out that she had accepted a plaque from them:

At a news conference in Queens, Mrs. Clinton announced that she would return the money. ”The statements that are attributed to the organization and some of its members are offensive and outrageous,” she said. ”I don’t want anyone to be under a misimpression. I don’t want anyone to have a false idea about what I believed was the case, so I am going to return all of the money.”

Mrs. Clinton also said she would return $1,000 to Mr. Alamoudi of the American Muslim Council. She said she did not know that the fund-raising event, which was held in Boston in June, had been sponsored by the American Muslim Alliance even though she was photographed at the event accepting a plaque from the chairman of the group’s Massachusetts chapter.

Unfortunately there was also a letter with Mrs. Clinton’s signature thanking the group for the fundraiser:

At the same time, Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that a White House office had written what she called a form letter, on official stationery, to the American Muslim Alliance, thanking the organization for a plaque it awarded her at a fund-raising reception in Massachusetts, where she raised $50,000 last June. After the donations were disclosed last week, Mrs. Clinton returned the money, saying that she had not been aware that the alliance, some of whose members have been quoted as defending the use of violence against Israel, had been an event sponsor.

Mr. Lazio’s aides asserted that the letter was proof that Mrs. Clinton had misled New Yorkers about her knowledge of the event.

But Mrs. Clinton, whose aides had learned that some reporters had obtained the letter, called a news conference and forcefully denied the Lazio campaign accusation. She said the letter was an automatic response by the White House gift office after she had returned to Washington from the trip to Massachusetts. She said the signature was electronically generated and she had never seen the letter before yesterday.

Mr. Lazio’s spokesman, Dan McLagan, laughed off that explanation. ”She said she didn’t remember the group, or the plaque,” Mr. McLagan said. ”But she thanked the group for the plaque. Surprise, surprise, Mrs. Clinton wasn’t telling the truth again. I’m shocked.”

Mrs. Clinton had, in fact, acknowledged receiving the plaque, as one of hundreds she had been given.

One can understand that with so much money coming in, it is hard to keep track of who you are thanking for fundraisers. However, I suspect the Republicans in November will not be so kind.

To make matters worse, Mr. Alamoudi has been quoted in public supporting Hamas and Hezbollah:

At another Washington rally, on Oct. 28, 2000, the AMC’s Mr. Alamoudi led the thousands in attendance to chant their support for Hamas and Hezbollah. "Hear that, Bill Clinton, we are all supporters of Hamas," he declared. "I wish they argued that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah." (When the New York Daily News asked about these comments earlier this week, Mr. Alamoudi denied making them, telling the reporter: "You better check your Arabic." When the reporter noted that he had given the speech in English, Mr. Alamoudi replied, "It was in English? Oh my God, I forgot!")

Back while Hillary Clinton was in the White House, she and Bill Clinton had no problems inviting groups such as Mr. Alamoudi’s to the White House. The White House maintained that these meetings were part of their "big tent" approach:

In the spring of 1996, I had lunch with a senior adviser to the Clinton Administration and to Hillary. I asked him if there was any concern over the article I had published in The Wall Street Journal that revealed that both the president and first lady had hosted militant Islamic groups, which had, at the White House, proclaimed their support for terrorism.

"This administration believes in a big tent." the adviser responded. "Besides, we’ve gotten no flak, so why should we back off?"

Hillary Clinton herself defended these associations and meetings:

The most telling moment of the first lady’s news conference–which has yet to be reported–came in response to a question as to why, she has met repeatedly over the years with other groups that had openly supported Hamas, Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations.

"I think what you’re referring to," she said, "is that over the course of the last seven years as part of the administration’s efforts to open lines of communication and build bridges with Muslim Americans and Muslim leaders from all over the world, many, many people have been invited to the White House. I have been part of some of those events. I have hosted some of them. I would imagine that some of the people who were invited were members of organizations with whom I would have had serious disagreements about some of the things those organizations have said. . . . So I think that if you want to talk about what the White House has tried to do, what the administration has tried to do to try to promote a framework for peace, it certainly included lines of communication to many different groups and many different individuals."

Yet in the debate this week Hillary Clinton had this to say about politicians and their associations:

It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn’t only the specific remarks but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas, to put a message in.

You know, these are problems. And they raise questions in people’s minds. And, so, this is a legitimate area, as everything is, when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.

…

And it goes to this larger set of concerns about how we are going to run against John McCain. You know, I wish the Republicans would apologize for the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years and not run anybody, just say that it’s time for the Democrats to go back into the White House.

Unfortunately, they don’t seem to be willing to do that. So we know that they’re going to be out there, full force.

And, you know, I’ve been in this arena for a long time. I have a lot of baggage, and everybody has rummaged through it for years.

By her own standard, the Republicans are likely to come after her for her association with Mr. Alamoudi and all those people she hosted at the White House and gave them a "seal of approval". Yes, it is unfortunate. But Hillary Clinton should be prepared for the right-wing attacks. And in keeping with her campaign’s approach of early vetting, I will do what I can to make sure she is prepared for these horrible horrible attacks on her character and her associations that are certain to come.
 

The Panderer-in-Chief Hillary Clinton tells us how she really feels about blue-collar America:

"’Screw ’em,’ she said, ‘you don’t owe them a thing, Bill, they’re doing nothing for you.’ Bill rose to their defense, ‘as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades,’" as one attendee recalled.

"’I know these boys,’ Bill said. ‘I grew up with them. Hardworking poor white boys who feel left out.’ He pointed out that liberal reforms had often ‘come at their expense’ and that the Democrats had to ‘find a way to include these boys in our programs.’ Hillary had no rejoinder, but during cocktails after the seminar she stood apart, ‘opaque and unsmiling.’"

Alan Wolfe, professor of political science at Boston College, who was at the gathering where Hillary spewed forth offers this recollection:

Both Chris Orr and Michael Crowley have brought up Ben Barber’s recollection of how angry Hillary had been at a 1995 Camp David retreat that was attended by a number of intellectuals. “Screw ‘em” was the term of art she directed–shall I say bitterly?–against white working-class Southerners. Harry Boyte, who was there, has also chimed in, pointing out, along with Barber, that Bill, by contrast, talked about the need to reach out to them.

"So, you’ve got two guys we’ve barely heard of remembering a verbatim quote from 13 years ago?… Sounds totally and completely reliable," responded Jay Carson from the Clinton campaign. Make that three. I was there. I hope people have heard of me. And Barber and Boyte have it right.

A lot of people compare Barack Obama to Bobby Kennedy. To me, he most resembles Bill Clinton, at least the Bill Clinton I knew then.

In light of her comments, I hope no one starts calling the Pander-in-Chief bitter.

Hillary Clinton cares so much about Pennsylvanians that she doesn’t even bother to put real Pennsylvanians in her "Pennsylvania" man-on-the-street attack ad, while real Pennsylvanians boo her:

It is no surprise that Americans simply don’t trust Hillary Clinton.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to write seriously about a campaign that has gone to the edge of ludicrous and then jumped over, so instead of writing words that will essentially have the same effect I offer you the following video that sums up the Clinton campaign: